Margaret Beckett: Our objective is to ensure that repossession is always the last resort. The mortgage rescue scheme and homeowner mortgage support scheme are just part of a comprehensive package of measures that we have put in place to assist families at risk of losing their homes. The MRS has been operational across the country since 1 January 2009. Since its launch, local authorities have reported that more than 1,000 households each month have come forward and received guidance on what support may be best for their circumstances. Seventy-seven households are in the final stages of receiving assistance and have had repossession action against them frozen by their lenders. Two households have so far completed the Government mortgage-to-rent process, whereby a registered social landlord has agreed to purchase their property and enable them to remain in their own home as tenants. We expect many more households to be helped in this way in the coming months.
	The homeowner mortgage support scheme opened with the first group of lenders on 21 April. Official figures on the number of households entering the scheme will be published later this year, and we are working closely with lenders and money advisers to monitor progress and ensure that the scheme is working effectively.

Bob Neill: Does the right hon. Lady understand that there is no amusement on this side of the House at the Government's situation, but there is a great deal of anger at their unwillingness to recognise the failure of these programmes, however well intended they might be, to deliver in practice? She neglected to tell the House that, of the 1,000 a month who register and express an interest in the mortgage rescue scheme, more than half are told that they do not qualify on the Government's own criteria. She neglected to say that on the current rate of progress the 6,000 who are supposed to be helped over the course of the scheme would, in fact, total about 12.
	The Minister refers to the home owner mortgage support scheme. Would it not have been better if she had owned up to the fact that the 50 per cent. of mortgage lenders coming forward is less than the 70 per cent. that she said would come forward when the scheme was first trailed? Will she explain why major players such as Santander, Barclays, HSBC and Nationwide have all ruled out participation in the scheme? There is nothing amusing about this: indeed, the Government's failure is tragic, if not scandalous.

Ken Purchase: I thank the Minister for that reply, but would he not agree with me and many others in this place and elsewhere who say that if the fourth option had been agreed to, the sum would have been spent more efficiently, effectively and quickly, and to the greater benefit of our tenants and certainly taxpayers, who, of course, ultimately own the housing stock?

Karen Buck: The decent homes initiative has transformed social housing in my constituency, but my hon. Friend is aware that the losers among residents are leaseholders who have bought properties that are now subject to major works bills, in some cases of £60,000—works that, in many cases, the leaseholders are totally unable to pay for. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is, once again, urgently reviewing whether there is special, targeted help that can be given to leaseholders who have, through no fault of their own, ended up owing bills of tens of thousands of pounds?

Hazel Blears: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern about the activities of extremist groups. I am aware of a number of groups that have used council premises in places including Ealing and Tower Hamlets. Some of the councils concerned have very courageously taken steps to ensure that those groups are banned from their premises on the grounds that their activities seek to divide communities. I can also confirm to my hon. Friend that my Department is in contact with those local authorities to support them in making the right decisions to bring our communities together, and not to divide them with the views of extremists.

Hazel Blears: As I remember, the last time the hon. Gentleman raised the issue he had a particular fanciable pigeon in mind; I have forgotten its name. I can say to him that I did personally take up the issue and find out why pigeon racing was not defined as a sport. Apparently it is because the owners do not take part in any physical activity.  [Laughter.] If they ran behind the pigeons, it could be a sport. In terms of empowering the pigeon fanciers, perhaps I can suggest to him that they might like to draw up a petition, so that we can see whether we can take action on the issue.

Daniel Rogerson: I was interested to hear the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), to the question on planning powers and the interaction with houses in multiple occupation. An issue that I have raised several times with the ministerial team, as have my hon. Friends, is the classification of second homes and whether there is some way of looking at planning and change of use orders to deal with the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) raised that possibility in the report that he provided for the Government, in line with previous reports that the Government have received from, among others, Elinor Goodman. Is there anything that they have drawn on in those reports in order to look at the issue of second homes?

Andrew Robathan: May I take the Ministers back to the subject of eco-towns, particularly that proposed for Leicestershire in Pembury, which is causing tremendous upset among the people of Leicestershire? There is no demand for it among the people of Leicestershire. Yes, there is a demand for social housing, but what about using brownfield sites? There is a real feeling that the fact that the Co-op is leading the charge for this eco-town may be a conflict of interest between Labour and the co-operative society.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend, as ever, is a champion for her community. She will know that I have visited Thornaby probably half a dozen times over the past 10 or 12 years, and I have seen the dramatic transformation that there has been in that community, which has suffered from a range of deprivation. The shopping centre that has been developed is a marvellous, light, airy, attractive place that will bring people to businesses in that community. The hairdressers in my hon. Friend's shopping centre did an excellent job, and I was delighted to be able to pay a visit there on my most recent visit.

Rosie Cooper: West Lancashire borough council tells me that if it were to reduce total rents by using the figure of 3.1 per cent., the formula would unfortunately have a perverse consequence when applied to the area. The council would have to reduce services by £67,000, and would risk a potential £500,000 problem the housing revenue account. Will the Minister look at how those perverse consequences play out when applied to West Lancashire?

Bailiffs (Repeals and Amendment)

Karen Buck: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements in respect of the use of force and forcible entry by bailiffs; to make provision for the reference to court of certain cases involving vulnerable clients; and for connected purposes.
	The recession of the past 18 months has painfully demonstrated the precariousness of many people's financial situation. Debt and debt recovery action have become a reality for ever larger numbers of people, and the arrival of a bailiff is, for many of those people, the ultimate trauma and humiliation. Indeed, we know of cases in which people have had heart attacks when the bailiffs have arrived. The mental and physical stress that people undergo is one of the worst things that will ever happen to them in their life.
	Of course, bailiffs and debt recovery mechanisms have to be used. There are always people who abuse trust, neglect their finances and refuse to engage with their creditors, and, ultimately, they must pay an appropriate price. Indeed, in my constituency role, some examples have been brought to my attention whereby bailiffs have intervened with their clients and been helpful in the extreme. They have been informative and sympathetic, and they have helped people with their predicament. Yet the truth is that many of those subject to such enforcement action are desperate and vulnerable people, and many are also victims of error. For them, even the actions of bailiffs who behave entirely reasonably—and they do not always do that—are disproportionate and excessive.
	As I do more and more work with constituents who owe money and I learn more about the process of debt recovery and the enforcement of fines, it has become clear to me that we have got the balance wrong, and that we need to review urgently the position that we are in. We must certainly not, in any circumstances, think of escalating the powers available to bailiffs, and the Government should rethink their approach to regulation.
	The bailiff at the door has been an image in literature for many years; it was a common motif in Dickens novels—but it is not a rare visitation on the feckless and the spendthrift, but an occurrence of staggering frequency. In my local authority alone, and in respect of just one debt—arrears of council tax—more than 13,000 cases ended up in the hands of bailiffs over a three-year period. The council has stated that 9 per cent. of council tax accounts—almost one in 10—end up in enforcement action. That is a staggering proportion.
	What does it mean to be on the receiving end of such action? It means fear and trauma for people, particularly children. I have heard of moving cases in which children have refused to leave the house or have insisted on having the lights out at home because they are so frightened of a bailiff coming and seizing their television or computer. Being on the receiving end also means an escalation of the original debt, which simply compounds the problems that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Only last week I had to intervene in the case of a single parent with three children, one of whom is disabled. Her parking fine, about which I was making representations, had escalated from an original £60 to £700 by the time the bailiffs arrived.
	Another constituent wrote to tell me that she had two sets of bailiffs chasing the same debt. Payments had been made to and acknowledged by the council, but did not then appear on the system. She wrote:
	"This has left me in a desperate state—each party refers me to the other, the fees are ever increasing and two companies are threatening the removal of goods for the same amount."
	Some people are the victims of mistaken identity, while others are the victims of identity fraud. I have had cases in which action has been taken against one person because of another person's criminality. The point is that there is a lack of proportionality in the response, given the likelihood of those at the receiving end being vulnerable, or victims of mistaken identity.
	The representations that I seek to make to Ministers through the Bill are threefold. The power of forcible entry into a person's home and the power for bailiffs even to use force against debtors are far too extreme to be given to civilian enforcement officers. The balance has been tilted too far against the householder's right to be secure from trespass into their home. The present position overturns a long-standing common law tradition, by which a bailiff peacefully entering a property could not be prevented from going about his or her task. The emphasis was very much on an acceptance of that right in certain cases, but obviously the tradition stopped short of forceful entry.
	The powers taken by the Government in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 have not been brought into effect by regulation, and we await the regulations that will implement them. However, I believe that it is now clear that such powers should be repealed. Their excessive harshness should not be left on the statute book, even with an indication that the Government do not intend to implement them at present. The powers should be removed entirely.
	Of course, the power to enter domestic premises forcibly to enforce the collection of criminal fines is already legal, and that too is creating appalling distress for many vulnerable households. Many of the criminal fines are levied on people on low incomes for offences such as the non-payment of TV licences, fare dodging and truancy. These are indeed offences, and it is only right that if an offence is deemed to have occurred, a penalty must be applied. However, the issue here, too, is one of proportionality, in terms of the sums involved and the manner of the enforcement deployed.
	I also seek a statutory procedure requiring bailiffs to return cases involving vulnerable and impoverished debtors to the courts or the creditors, and powers to allow people subject to any bailiff action to apply to the courts for any bailiff warrant to be suspended—something that is missing from the 2007 Act. At present, that recourse is available only to people subject to county court bailiff warrants. People subject to bailiff warrants who have not been subject to county court applications have to rely on the good will and discretion of the creditor.
	Some bailiffs and courts rely on case law, which holds that a distress warrant cannot be withdrawn once it has been issued. That directly contradicts the national standards for enforcement agents, which suggests a procedure enabling the bailiff to return cases of vulnerable fine defaulters to the court. The procedure to bypass this anomaly recommended by the Ministry of Justice is to write a letter to the court asking for a re-hearing of the case. In practice, however, neither bailiffs nor fine defaulters seem to know this, and disproportionate fines are being paid by benefit claimants and other low-income groups, intensifying the poverty that pushed many of them into debt in the first place. My Bill would clear up the anomaly by enabling bailiffs to return vulnerable cases to the courts and creditors for reconsideration.
	Finally, we need a statutory provision for bailiffs to accept "affordable payments", with a definition of what that might mean in practice, so that before goods are seized or payment in full is demanded, an assessment is made of what can practically be afforded, at least in a single payment. By way of illustration, one of my constituents wrote to me a few weeks ago in the following terms:
	"I received a letter on the 10th of January notifying me that the bailiffs were to visit my house that same day, with regards to £191 arrears of Council Tax. I explained to someone in their office that I was not aware of that debt as I did not live at that address anymore. I made an arrangement to pay the money I did owe in instalments, the last of which—£63—was due on Easter Monday. I had no money at all, and called their office to make an arrangement. They said that unless I paid £195 today the bailiffs would come and carry my goods. I requested him to take the payment of £63 which clears my account, but he said the bailiffs will still come and carry my goods because I made the payment late and incurred a charge of £131!"
	This treatment of people simply will not do.
	My purpose today is not to put bailiffs in the firing line: some are good, some are bad, but all are operating in a framework that is not as it should be. Likewise, I am not singling out my own council, Westminster, for although I think that it makes too liberal a use of bailiffs, and it has certainly not developed the comprehensive advice and debt service that the local population needs, I do not think that it is uniquely bad. Indeed, I would commend officers in the finance department for the quality of service that they have offered to me in helping to deal with many of the difficult cases that I put to them. Nevertheless, we do have a grave problem with debt and debt recovery services, with disproportionately harsh penalties being applied to hundreds of thousands—if not millions, over years—of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. I believe that they need greater protection, and above all, to be freed from the fear of the implementation of the excessively harsh powers held in reserve in the legislation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Ms Karen Buck, Martin Salter, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Gary Streeter, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Clive Efford, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Bob Russell, Mr. Andy Slaughter, Mr. Andrew Love and Mr. David Winnick present the Bill.
	Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October ,  and to be printed (Bill 102).

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I believe that we should control migration to the benefit of this country. That is why the points-based system, even tier 2, has led to 12 per cent. fewer people coming in than would be the case if the system had not been in place last year.

Lembit �pik: I am listening to the Home Secretary's argument, but would she accept that the increasingly rules-based nature of how we handle immigration creates undesirable unintended consequences? One of my constituents, Miss Cunningham, who is seriously ill, has had her request for a carer from the Philippine islands turned down on technical grounds. Does the Home Secretary recognise that the more we depend on a rules-based system, the less latitude Ministers have to interpret the guidelines in a sympathetic way and that that can make the Government seem very heartless, as they have to Miss Cunningham?

Jacqui Smith: I think that it is a good thing to reduce the numerous routes that previously existed and have a clear and fair system, as we have in the points-based system.
	Let me return to the strength of the border. Through the work of the e-borders operations centre, or EBOC, joint working between those at the border and the police is helping to ensure the security of those who travel to and from the UK. I am clear that that is where we should be putting our energy. Such work provides the advantage of robust collaboration, but without the drawbacks of significant further structural change to policing, as advocated by some Opposition Members. We will take practical steps to deliver an effective working relationship between the police and the Border Agency, and not just at the border, but across the country.
	However, those who argue for greater border security cannot do so in all good faith while opposing the necessary wider protections that we have put in place. It is not enough to have the police and border officials working side by side. They also need the tools for the job, such as electronic border controls and ID cards for foreign nationals. Both of those protections are opposed by Opposition Members.

Kate Hoey: In making all those changes to our border controls, would the Home Secretary consider creating a new channel of entry for people carrying British passports, so that we do not have to queue up behind hundreds and thousands of people who are coming from other countries? Surely if we are coming into our own country with a British passport, we should have our own way of coming in.

Jacqui Smith: That issue is not about the CTA. There are strong constraints, particularly in the EU, on which people can and cannot be deported. However, the UK's relationship with the Republic of Ireland in the common travel area is an important element, and one that our proposals are aimed at safeguarding. I am of course ready to consider any other options to deliver the policy objectives that I am sure we all share to counter the vulnerability that we have identified.
	Alongside our proposals for the integrated border force, and to preserve what is best about the common travel area, the Bill also proposes to strengthen our border controls in other ways. It amends existing powers so that we can take the fingerprints of foreign criminals subject to automatic deportation provisions, and it extends to Scotland a power to allow immigration officers to detain at port for up to three hours a person subject to a warrant for arrest, as is already the case in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Alongside taking the necessary steps to strengthen our border, we need to make immigration work in the interests of Britain, as several of my hon. Friends have already said. The points-based system is now fully up and running, and we have closed down the route to non-EU low-skilled migration. We have always said that the points system will allow us to be flexible in controlling migration, and more effective than the arbitrary cap proposed by the Opposition. It allows us to raise or lower the bar according to the needs of business and the country as a whole, as we showed in February when I announced changes to raise the qualification and salary levels for entering the UK as a highly skilled migrant, and when we announced proposals to give British workers a fair crack of the whip by ensuring that employers must advertise more skilled jobs through Jobcentre Plus before they can bring in a worker from outside Europe, and proposals to ensure that each future shortage occupation list published by the Migration Advisory Committee triggers skills reviews that focus on up-skilling domestic workers for those occupations.
	I am grateful for the work of Professor David Metcalf and his advisory committee, and if he advises us that we need to continue to tighten these measures in Britain's economic interest, we will do so. Overall, the decisions that we have taken to control migration will reduce the numbers of economic migrants coming to Britain and staying, while ensuring that we attract and keep the right peoplethose with the skills that our economy needs.
	Migration has brought us economic benefits, but it should not be a substitute for up-skilling the domestic work force. Nor should there be a right to automatic citizenship based purely on length of stay in Britain. Part 2 of the Bill sets out the terms of the deal that we will expect newcomers to sign up to if they want to stay and build a life in this country.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Home Secretary talks about a deal between a migrant seeking citizenship and the state that awards that citizenship. Will she assure the House that there will be no circumstances in which an asylum seeker who has been on temporary admission for a long time because of delays by the Home Office in deciding their case will not have the time that they have been in the country counted as legal residence for the purposes of becoming a citizen, as is presently the case?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right that clause 39 was inserted in the other place to deal with transitional provisions, but we do not believe that the drafting of the clause would achieve what the hon. Gentleman outlined in his intervention. There are questions about the length of time that we want to take before the right provisions about earned citizenship come into place. We will, of course, look in further detail at how to deal with people already in this country and the basis on which they are here, but I do not personally think that we should have to wait until everyone who is here on a temporary basis has worked through the system before introducing what I think is the right deal, spelled out in our earned citizenship proposals. As part of that deal, people who want to make their home permanently here must be able to demonstrate their commitment to Britain by speaking English, working hard and playing by the rules.
	Our earned citizenship proposals provide a clearer and fairer journey to citizenship. They deliver simple steps and set the right balance between demonstrating commitment to the UK and gaining access to privilegesprivileges like our benefits system, where we estimate that our proposals could result in savings of at least 350 million in the first five years. Those who show a real commitment to this country by making a positive contribution to the wider community will be able to complete the journey to citizenship more quickly. Requiring migrants to earn citizenship will, for the first time, mean that there is no automatic link, as was mentioned earlier, between coming to the UK to work or study and settling here permanently. I believe that breaking that link is an important new stage in our reform of immigration.

Frank Field: May I welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made, but also ask her to develop her ideas on this very point? The Government are now committed not to grow the population through immigration, and if we are not going to do that, there needs to be a cap on the number of new citizens received in any one year. Will she clarify whether that is now also part of the Government's thinking?

Keith Vaz: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help me by explaining to the House why imposing a limit on the number of people coming in from outside the EU is an arbitrary figure, whereas a figure fixed by the Government for the number of people in any one year who can have citizenship is not an arbitrary figure?

Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend read any significance into the fact that after having announced the new policy on citizenship, the Secretary of State pointedly refused to take no less than three interventions from her own side, despite delivering what was a relatively short speech for a Second Reading debate?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right, and I have a sneaking suspicion that the next Home Secretary may not be as keen to adopt the policy as the current one is on the eve of her departure from her post.
	The reality is stark. Immigration into this country has increased fivefold since this Government came to power. A decade ago, net immigration into the UK was less than 50,000 a year; by 2007, that figure had risen to almost 250,000. On top of that, the Government admit that there are more than 500,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. The UK population is now projected to grow to 71 million by 2031, with half that growth directly attributed to new migration. Public services simply cannot cope with an unplanned rate of change on the scale of recent years. Police forces are struggling with the cost of translation services; schools in areas of high migration face the challenges of large numbers of pupils without English as a first language; health services will struggle to cope with the extra demands of new arrivals; and Ministers do not seem to have much of an idea what to do about the problem.
	The Home Secretary still this afternoon refuses to take the very obvious step of limiting the number of new arrivals. The sensible approach is very simple: introduce an annual limit on immigration and bring immigration down to manageable levels. When Ministers talk about introducing an Australian-style, points-based system for this country, they forget that the Australians themselves set a limit on immigration.

Chris Grayling: We will have a cap for the United Kingdom as a wholewe have not reached the point of having a Scottish-only immigration system. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will do his best to promote Scotland as a place to live, work and invest, and rightly so.
	Despite the tough talk of MinistersI listened with amazement to what the Home Secretary said about our borders and the policing of themthey are failing to police our borders properly. We know that the number of removals from the UK is falling and that even when Ministers have extensive details about illegal immigrants, they fail to act. I keep raising at oral questions the issue of the thousands of illegal immigrants revealed 18 months ago to have been cleared to work in the security industry by the Security Industry Authority. We know that only a handful of those people have been deported, but more worrying still is the fact that Ministers are not even able to give a clear assurance that none of those people are still employed in the security industry. Indeed, the last time I raised the issue it was pretty clear that Ministers have no idea what happened to those people and where they have gone since the situation was exposed.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many people in this country who have been here for quite a long time, who do jobs that nobody else wants to do and who lead a very poor existence. Many people, including me and some members of his party, including the Mayor of London, support the Strangers into Citizens campaign to treat these people decently, give them legality and ensure that they are able to live safely in our society. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, in all his passion, he should say a word or two about them?

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that an awful lot of money and effort has gone into the wrong things? We often do not have enough staff at Heathrow and the other main ports of entry to deal courteously and quickly with all the legitimate people coming in and to take the necessary steps to weed out the ones who should not be coming in. Is that not a question of misplaced resources and bad management?

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about bad management; I shall come to talk about the policing of our borders in a moment, because that is one of the big gaps in our system.
	The Government have lost part 8 of the draft Bill, which would have addressed carriers' liability. Part 9 would have introduced tougher rules on employing illegal workers. All the things that I have mentioned have gone, and when the spine of a Bill is ripped out, it is hardly surprising that the Bill collapses under scrutiny. This Bill will do no harm, but little good.
	So, what is left? Part 1 of the stripped down Bill tinkers with the powers given to the UK Border Agency, which was set up by the Government to create a semblance of action, but as usual what this Government are doing misses the point. The Bill only shuffles things around and does not deal with our biggest problemour porous borders. The fact that our borders are so poorly controlled is a big challenge. A huge proportion of illegal immigrants in Britain arrive in the back of a lorry. People trafficking is causing misery and despair to those caught up in it, yet the lax controls at our borders make us a magnet for the traffickersno wonder the UK is classified as a high-level destination country for trafficking.
	We are pleased that in part 4 of the Bill the Government have answered our call to amend the law that allowed very young children to be trafficked with impunity. The measure will amend the definition of exploitation to remove the requirement for a child to be requested or induced to undertake any activity in order for an act to be regarded as trafficking for exploitation. But that is not enough and more will need to be done. The issue is not only people being smuggled into the countrysenior police officers have warned about the scale of smuggling of illegal firearms and replica weapons into the UK, and the Government have admitted the scale of the problem.
	I listened with astonishment to the Home Secretary's remarks about how secure our borders are. Only a few months ago, the Minister for Borders and Immigrationalways a useful source for thoughts about why the Government's policies are not workingtold a newspaper:
	We have, compared to other rich countries, been liberal in our border controls.
	A few moments ago, the Home Secretary described those borders as among the most secure in the world. No wonder we do not have joined-up thinking about immigration in Whitehall.
	Then we had the Home Secretary boasting about her border force, butextraordinarilyit has no policing responsibility. I heard a lot of nonsense from her about integrated policing. I have talked to police in our ports in areas where they have to cover points of entry into the country, and they have a constant battle to balance local policing with the need for policing in the ports. A police officer from a port may be policing the town centre on a Friday or Saturday night rather than policing the port, and that is not good enough.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman says that he has been round the ports, but I am not sure that he has been to the port of Holyhead in my constituency. I go there regularly, and the system works well. The hon. Gentleman is talking about chief constables who complain about cuts in their forces, but within the ports counter-terrorist units have been set up, with close co-operation between the police and the Border Agency. Has he seen that working, or is he only listening to chief constables?

Chris Grayling: In this country, we have a piecemeal approach to policing our borders, with a pocket of policing here and another there. In too many places we have inadequate policing that is divided between different responsibilities. The Conservatives remain convinced that we need a dedicated border police force [ Interruption. ] The Home Secretary is muttering about the e-Borders project. We do not object to the principle of keeping a record of who comes into and goes out of the country. However, I do not believe that we need to maintain detailed records of 10 years of holiday arrangements, holiday partners or credit card statements for every citizen who wants to go on holiday. We need to achieve a balance in what we do, and the Government have completely failed to find that balance.
	Part 2 of the Bill deals with citizenship. We have just heard about the chaotic Government policy on that issue. We have one set of changes in this Bill and now we discover that another set of changes will be introduced before the summer, according to the Home Secretary. Why can we not do this properly in one go, if she has a grand plan for the issue? Judging by the comments from the Labour Benches, her successor will struggle to get any such measures past the Labour party.
	The citizenship proposals in the Bill construct a complicated and bureaucratic set of mechanisms to deal with the adverse consequences of out-of-control immigrationconsequences that we have been warning about for years. Now we know that the Government's plan is to introduce a new points-based systemthe second in our immigration system. The new category of probationary citizenship will be a precursor to citizenship, to replace the existing limited leave to remain. What does the new category add of value to the existing arrangements?
	As for the concept of active citizenship, the basic principle is that those who wish to become British citizens should contribute to this country, and that is well established. Someone is granted citizenship every five minutes in this country and, of course, they want to play a positive role in our society. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right, but we do not know how the active citizenship proposals will work in practice. As usual, the Government intend to set out the details in secondary legislation, but Parliamentary should have the opportunity to scrutinise the important question of which activities will count towards qualifying for citizenship.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that we need less legislation done well rather than the glut of legislation that we have had under this Government, which, since we are on the eighth immigration Bill, palpably does not work in the way that we would like it to. We want less legislation done well, with proper scrutiny and proper detail, rather than eight immigration Bills done badly, which is what we have had under this Government.
	Has the Home Secretary fully considered the impact of effectively compelling those who want to accelerate their path to citizenship to undertake voluntary work? What will be the impact on the voluntary sector? There is also the question of how the condition will be applied in a fair manner that does not put certain groups of applicants at a disadvantage.

Chris Grayling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very keen to discover Conservative policy, but we are dealing with a situation that is probably a year away. Before we get to that point, I would be delighted to write to him and the public as a whole with more detail about what we intend to do.
	Let me move on to what I think is the most absurd portion of the Billthe proposed change to the common travel area. For most of the past century, people travelling between the UK, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Republic of Ireland have been able to do so without border and immigration controls. Anyone who is tempted to be reassured by the Home Secretary's comments should go back and look at the  Hansard record from the other place to be absolutely clear about the Government's intentions.
	The common travel area was introduced in 1921, when Ireland was partitioned. It survived throughout the second world war. Only now have the Government decided that change is necessary; we disagree. The Government's proposals are unworkable and should be scrapped. We oppose them, most importantly because the plan is completely unenforceable. What on earth is the point of having tougher controls at ports and airports between, for example, Britain and the Republic of Ireland if the land border between the two does not exist in any physical form at all? All the security installations between the two have been dismantled, and in many places the border has always been no more than a bend on a country lane.
	Unless the Government are now planning to introduce border controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, their plans are completely unworkable. I trust that even this authoritarian Administration do not propose to introduce internal movement controls within the UK. That is why we brought forward an amendment in the other place to remove the proposals from the Bill. I very much hope that Ministers will accept that change, but I fear that they plan to continue the battle to secure a change that is not needed and not workable.
	In light of recent events, the glaring omission from the Bill concerns student visas. It is clear that the student visa system is being exploited by thousands of bogus colleges acting as fronts for illegal immigration. We have warned the Government about that for years. Getting a student visa for Britain is big business in Pakistan. High-quality fake documents that will help applicants to get visas are on sale for 100, and self-styled immigration consultants are hard at work trying to beat the system. The British high commission in Pakistan previously estimated that half of all students to whom it grants visas disappear after reaching the UK. Just last week, a national newspaper reported that four of the students recently arrested and later released had certificates from a bogus college in Manchester. They were then given places at English universities. The institution in question allegedly brought hundreds of people over from Pakistan before eventually being shut down by the Home Office.
	Despite that threat, in April we found that student visa applications from Pakistan are being handled by the UK Border Agency not in Pakistan but in Abu Dhabi, to allow for a reduction in staff in Islamabad. Anxious to appear to be tackling the problem, the Government introduced a new, much shorter, list of approved colleges for sponsoring UK student visas. The Minister for Borders and Immigration boldly claimed that that formed part of
	the most significant changes to our immigration system since the Second World War.
	There were about 15,000 institutions on the Government's approved register, but now there are only 1,500 institutions on the list. That dramatic reduction prompts the question why many of them were on the official list in the first place.

Keith Vaz: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the evidence that the Minister gave to the Committee this morning. As a direct result of it, we are even more concerned about the number of students in the country at the moment who are seeking an extension. We have decided to extend our inquiry and invite Ministers from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills to give evidence, because this is not just a Home Office issue; it is an issue for DIUS, too. We will continue with the inquiry because we believe that it merits the attention.

Neil Gerrard: I absolutely appreciate that point, but a different mechanism will apply in future when the indefinite leave status will not be granted to people. Instead, they will get citizenship, and with that they will gain permanent permission to stay.
	May I just say a word about something that the Home Secretary said, which I do not think any of us had heard about beforethe suggestion that there might be a points-based system in relation to citizenship? Obviously, we have no idea what that would actually mean, but I can see how the points-based system that applies to people coming here to work might translate into a points-based system on citizenship. It is likely that under a citizenship points-based system people will gain points if they are in work or perhaps even depending on the amount of money that they earn. They will gain points depending on whether they are involved in certain activities such as community service and voluntary activity, which are mentioned in the Bill. In turn, that means that some people will be fundamentally disadvantaged by the proposals on work and voluntary activity. Inevitably, it will be more difficult for people with health problems, people with disabilities, and perhaps elderly people to gain such points. Certainly, some women will find it much more difficult to take part in the voluntary activity that is suggested as a means of accelerating the acquisition of citizenship.
	The Bill will discriminate against certain people because the proposals on voluntary activity, as drafted, will make it easier for some people to pass the test than others. If that proposal is then incorporated into a points system, it could well mean that some people will wait much, much longer before they can qualify for citizenship. That will certainly impact on people who do not have a lot of money. Volunteering sounds great, but it is not necessarily expense free. People acting as volunteers may not always do so without some cost to themselves. Some of the voluntary sector organisations have pointed out as a possible problem that they may not be able to recompense a volunteer's expenses.

Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the Home Secretary did not address the recommendations made in pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee on such issues as retrospective changes being brought in, and would not give way when I attempted to raise the issue, and also that the Bill does not deal with earlier recommendations from the Joint Committee in relation to what appears to be a deliberate policy of destitution for many people who, through no fault of their own, cannot return home?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. He will certainly have our support if he intends to table an amendment on the issue, which is an anomaly that we need to deal with.
	A national border force is necessary, but why the delay? Such a force should unite the present border control functions of HMRC, the police and the UK Border Agency, yet the proposals as drafted in part 1 of the Bill are still a muddle. They broadly extend the current powers of UKBA staff and others, as determined by the Secretary of State, but they provide no specific details. What exactly are the general customs matters that the UKBA will have the authority to address? The extension of powers that are exercisable by immigration officials are worrying, especially when they are so ill defined. We are concerned that the new powers blur the distinction between immigration controls and criminality. We share the concerns of Liberty, for example, that part 1 sends the signal that immigrants are, by definition, criminally suspicious. In addition, we will be pressing for clarification and reassurance from the Government on exactly how long UKBA officials would be able to detain a person at their offices, as these powers caused much confusion on all sides in the Lords.
	The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives tabled amendments on these subjectsalbeit with different detailsduring consideration of the Bill in the other place. We will seek to address the issues again in Committee, particularly with regard to giving the Independent Police Complaints Commission a remit to investigate the UKBA, given the extent of the new powers, and to the implementation of our own integrated border force, as previously discussed.
	Part 2 of the Bill amends the rules on naturalisation. Again, we have some concerns. The new rules will make naturalisation more difficult to achieve, but many of the details are absent. We do not yet know what types of visa will mean that a stay would qualify as time spent towards achieving naturalisation. Similarly, the eight or five years residency requirements to be eligible for naturalisation can be amended by secondary legislation under clause 42(2), providing no certainty at all for those embarking on the process. I very much take the point made by Conservative Back Benchers about the transitional arrangements, for those who had expected their naturalisation to be able to continue, under clause 39. We will definitely support the retention of that measure in the Bill.
	The extension of the qualifying period for naturalisation is likely to have a detrimental effect on community relations, and will place applicants in difficult circumstances if they are denied access to mainstream benefits and services for longer periods. This is particularly true of asylum seekers, who are largely neglected by the Bill. We will continue to push for further changes to the Bill, to ensure that time spent in Britain by refugees prior to the determination of their claims will count as part of the qualifying period.
	The introduction of a formal volunteering process is a cause for concern. Is it right that migrants should be expected to do more than those born with British citizenship? Again, the Bill does not specify what types of activity will qualify as counting towards citizenship. Neither does it address the inherently discriminatory aspects of the proposals. People in cities will find it much easier to volunteer than those living in remote communities, for example. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has also made the point about people who are involved in shift work or have problems for reasons of health or of family circumstances.
	The process will be an administrative nightmare, too. How will the Government track what has been done and what has not? How will they ensure that people are not bypassing the system, as we have seen happen with tier 4 of the points-based immigration system, and that there is not an explosion in the number of so-called bogus colleges? The Government's track record on managing this type of project does not inspire confidence. We do not want or need a whole new bureaucratic system to deal with voluntary activities when, by their very nature, they should be voluntary.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely correct.
	Part 3 of the Bill is much amended from its original form, and much improved. The effective abolition of the common travel area with Ireland was unnecessary and without rationale, and it may have breached human rights. We very much support the new proposals, which maintain the system of open borders on air and sea routes between the UK and the Republic of Ireland that has been in position since partition in 1921.
	Similarly, my noble Friend Lord Smith of Clifton inserted a very sensible protection against what the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has described as mission creep, which prevents any provision relating to immigration control for persons entering, or seeking to enter, the UK by land from being made by Order in Council. We will fight for these changes to be maintained through the Bill's journey in this House.
	There are of course some welcome features in a Bill this long. Clause 56 in part 4, which widens the definition of exploitation in the offence of human trafficking, is a positive move for the protection of children. Further measures to introduce a duty to ensure the protection of children in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality are again welcome, although widening those measures to cover children when outside the UK may also be desirable.
	In total, this is a disappointing Bill. It is disappointing because it fails to rise to the challenges of an absolutely crucial field of policy. It defers difficult decisions to later statutory instruments and it panders to populism by making naturalisation more cumbersome and difficult. The Bill also represents a series of missed opportunities in failing to accelerate the reintroduction of exit checks, to address illegal immigrants or to reform the asylum system. We will not vote against the Bill tonight because we welcome the provisions to allow a more effective attack on child trafficking, but we sincerely urge Ministers to look again at the many holes that it still contains.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), the shadow Liberal Democrat spokesman.
	We do live in very interesting times and although we have had no announcement from the Home Office, I am taking my lead from the shadow Home Secretary in assuming that the Home Secretary is going to stand down. When he paid tribute to her, she did not jump to the Dispatch Box and tell him that he was wrong. Although the Home Secretary is no longer in her place I, too, want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to her, as this is going to be her last outing at the Dispatch Box in her current role.
	My right hon. Friend has been and is the first woman Home Secretary and in my view she has done an excellent job. It is a very tough job, as her successors will find out. Perhaps for no other job than Prime Minister is the patience of a secular saint so required on account of the huge amount of work that has to be done. Every single hour of the day, something is happening in respect of this portfolio, which covers policing, immigration, justice, home affairs, the European dimension and counter-terrorism.
	My right hon. Friend has always been extremely helpful to the Home Affairs Committee. I see in his place the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), another member of the Committee, and other members have been coming in and out of the Chamber. Whenever called to give evidence, the Home Secretary has been there, and she has always been transparent, open and honest. We have disagreed on many aspects of policy, particularly on the issue of police pay when matters became pretty robust, but on all other issues, my right hon. Friend has proved open and able to engage in all sorts of discussions with us. We are very grateful for what she has done.
	The Home Secretary goes at the top of her game. Her moving on came as a surprise to me, but I know that she will make a contribution to other aspects of public life and, indeed, to the life of Parliament as she continues to be an MP. I hope that the Minister for Borders and Immigration will pass on the good wishes from me and from the rest of the Houseand I mean from all political parties.
	I also want to address a few words to the Minister for Borders and Immigration. When I tried to praise him this morning, he felt that it was a precursor to my then having a go at him, but on the issue that we have engaged with most recentlythe GurkhasI must say that the Select Committee, and, indeed, the whole House is grateful for his handling of that particular aspect of immigration policy. We know that this is a difficult policy area and we understood where the Government were coming from.
	The House made its views known and the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box before the House rose that evening to ask the Select Committee and Parliament to engage in a discussion about how to resolve the issue. It seemed to me unusual that a Minister was prepared to start that engagement process at such short notice, and he was absolutely true to his word. His officials and those of the Ministry of Defence met the Committee and Ms Lumley and the process started. Within a very short time, a Select Committee report was issued. I know that the Minister is not going to repeat this every time we write a Select Committee report, but on this occasion, he accepted our findings in full within 48 hours.
	I would like to emphasise to the Minister that that sort of can-do attitude is precisely what we would like to see adopted for immigration policy. I believe that he still has it in himI am making a prediction here and I stress that the Prime Minister will not be consulting me about the reshuffleand I very much hope that he will still be in the same job this time next week. Saying that may well have damned his career and the Prime Minister, who I am sure is watching these proceedings, may well want to move him on. The Minister has made a very good start. He has been open, honest and transparent, as he was with the Select Committee this morning. He has admitted the existence of real problems in, previously, the immigration and nationality directorate and, now, the Border and Immigration Agency. He has set out his stall and made clear the ways in which he believes these matters can be resolved.
	The Minister and I will still disagree about the backlog. I still believe that when he finishes his job, whenever that will beI hope that it will be many months and years from nowhe will be judged by me, and by colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), who have been in the House for longer than I have, on the basis of the length of the backlog. At the moment, I can give him only five out of 10 in that respect.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If Lin Homer did not exist to sign the letters, we would have to invent her. A letter from the chief executive will arrive after the busy surgery on a Friday, saying that it will take two years to resolve these matters. When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box and agreed to resolve the issue of the Gurkhas, within a very short time there was the political will and the can-do attitude. All cases would be dealt with by the end of May, and all pre-1997 cases would be dealt with within two years.
	All Members, in all parts of the House, have received the famous Lin Homer letter that says Don't write to us, because we are resolving it. When are you resolving it? In two years' time. That is the fundamental problem of the way in which the immigration system has developed over the past 20 yearscertainly from the moment when I entered the House. Yes, it has improved because the backlog has been reduced, but there is still a backlog which could have been cleared, at least in the last 12 years, if the Government had wanted to clear it. I know that a lot of resources have been devoted to dealing with the backlog, but I fear that the Bill will create a bigger backlog. I fear that people will to be made to jump through even larger hoops in order to gain citizenship and stay in the country, and that the path to citizenship will be littered with more obstacles and hurdles.
	I understand perfectly well why the Government, and Parliament, have decided to take this action. That is why I shall vote for the Bill, as I have voted for every other immigration Bill that the Government have presented in the last eight years. Although it will mean that genuine people must wait longer, we will support the Government's action. However, there is a deal. We will take the harsh medicine, but in return for what we are doingsupporting a Bill that I would never support if this were a Conservative Government and I were a Labour Back Bencher: we would be jumping up every five minutes objecting to what the Conservatives were doingthe Minister must deliver the proper, effective and efficient immigration system which has still not been delivered by the Government after 12 years.

Keith Vaz: We frequently go to Croydon, but we do not necessarily get to see what we ought to see; I have found that people are very nice to Select Committees, but we still get the information that we need from the statistics, and the statistics are poor.
	I know that the Minister often says that mistakes have been made, as he did in respect of bogus collegesif he is frowning at me, he need not, because that is the best he can do. Hundreds of bogus colleges were brought into existence under this tough Government doing tough things on immigration. As one of our witnesses said this morning, people can set up a college above a fish-and-chip shop anywhereeven in Oldhamand they will be able to get someone into this country. That is what the universities told us today. Over the past 12 years, hundreds of bogus colleges have been set up and tens of thousands of bogus students have entered this country.
	The Minister appeared before the Committee today and said, with his usual robustness and honesty, that he knows about what has happened in the past but that we now have the points-based system, which is the great panacea, and that if we open the bottle called the points-based systemthe most fantastic thing the world has ever seen, and certainly the most fundamental review of immigration policy since the second world wareverything will be fine and calm. We then presented him with a letter from Baroness Warwick, who represents Universities UK, which points out that the very organisations that conduct the accreditation have websites that do not list either their inspectors or the institutions they have visited.
	We accept that the Minister comes with good will to the House, as he came with good will to the Select Committee, and we give him the benefit of the doubt as we know he wants to sort out this problem, but we say to him that time is running out. It is not legal immigration that we are concerned about, and I do not think the people of this country are concerned about that either; they would agree with what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) said earlier about clause 39 and those people who have come to this country legitimately with their skillsdoctors and others were mentionedto benefit our country. Of course, they have been benefited as individuals, but they have also benefited our country, and they might now be told that they cannot get citizenship or they will have to waitI know this does not apply to those people who currently have indefinite leavefrom five to eight years, and from three to five years, and in between this wait, they will have to satisfy various criteria. We even accept that, but what we cannot accept is what the Home Secretary said today about a cap being placed on citizenship. It is no good the Minister looking at me as he is now; that is precisely what she said at the Dispatch Box today, having said all along that we do not accept the notion of a cap. She was talking in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and she said that there would be a cap on citizenship. That is something that the Minister himself originally said when he first took up his post; he talked about a certain level of population in this country, and then said that was not the case and that he had never mentioned a cap.
	If we are to have a new, points-based system for citizenship, the House needs to know about it. We do not need to be told, as if we are children, that this is a framework document and that some time in the futurein the summeranother consultation document will be published. The Minister must be fair to the House. In his wind-up, he needs to answer what has been put by the shadow Home Secretary, the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If there is something in a drawer in Lunar house on a new consultation on a points-based system for citizenship, we have a right to know what that is; we have a right to know what it is before we vote through this Bill on Second Reading, and certainly before Report and when it comes back in the final Session.
	I ask the Minister to be open and honest with the House. We know there are problems. We know that the public will not accept unlimited immigrationthe kind of immigration that brought me and the people who arrived on the Windrush into this country. Those days are, of course, completely gone. I am also thinking of those of my constituents whom Idi Amin expelled from Uganda and who came here from east Africa; people will never be accepted in those numbers now. Those who have come since then have all been EU citizens who have an absolute right to come here, and some of them have, in fact, returned. People do not mention the fact that they have preferred to go back to their eastern European countries because, for the moment, their economies are doing slightly better than oursalthough I am sure they will all come back again when our economy is fully repaired.
	That fact is that there is no mass immigration in Britain any morethe Minister knows thatbut there is the illegal immigration that is so blighting our country, and we want him and this Government to do much more about that. I know that he does not like guessing the number of illegals, but he has clever officials, so he should sit them down and ensure that we get the figures. The Mayor of London has the figures and at least he has a solution to dealing with illegal immigrationthe amnesty. We need to deal with this issue, and not just at the border.
	The Minister, as well as being responsible for immigration, is the acting entry clearance Minister, for the time being, so he knows that there is also a problem with that. I was aghast to hear of the number of students who come from Pakistan in particular, although as I said to the high commissioner last week, this is not an issue just for Pakistan because many countries are involved. The relevant numbers are 7,000 five years ago and 26,000 now. The journalist who wrote the report in  The Times told us about these bogus colleges in Manchester that are supposed to admit only 50 such students but had 1,700 on the roll. These are serious issues and the Border and Immigration Agency must investigate them.
	We take all the Minister's tough medicine today in saying to our constituents and those who seek to come here, I am sorry that you must wait longer to become a British citizen and you have to do all these things: you have to obey the law, of course, and you have to be able to speak English. We accept everything that is being put upon a community such as mine in Leicester, where half the population has origins abroad. We accept all that, but in return we want the Government to do more to tackle illegal immigration, so that those who come legally will be treated properly.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. We have to have rulesnot everyone can arrive and suddenly become a British citizen. That does not happen in the USpeople need a green card. If someone then commits a criminal offence, they are removed or do not get citizenship. However, we do need to be very compassionate in how we deal with such situations, especially when it comes to peoplemany from the Caribbeanwho have lived here for many years, since Windrush, and have not bothered to get a passport or any documents and therefore have never become naturalised.
	The Minister was very proactive in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who talked about the possibility of bogus voluntary organisations being created to provide certificates to prove to the Home Office that people had done their active citizenship service. We need to be careful about that and not just put that provision through on a statutory instrument. We should consult with the public and with Parliament, and we should then come up with criteria of which we can all be proud when we invite people to become equal citizens with us in this country. The Minister has given similar assurances in the past, which we have accepted readily and gladly, and we want to see that happen in this case.
	There is still much work to be done on this Bill, and I hope that it will be improved in Committee. I hope that the Minister stays true to his promise to be open to suggestions so that we have a robust system, as we all want, and so that people who come here legally are properly treated, and those who come illegally, who are not asylum seekers and have no right to be here, are removed. It must also be a fair system so that we can retain the values that have made us one of the greatest countries in the world.

Nigel Evans: That says it all. My error would mean that I could not go and live in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman's error would mean that he should not really be here. Perhaps, if he accepts my part of the dealwe will see.
	This is an important debate. Immigration is clearly high in the minds of a lot of people at the moment, particularly at a time of recessionno one has mentioned immigration yet. Immigration is always on people's minds, but when the economy is booming it is less of a priority for a lot of people. Now, of course, there is a recession. Employment is high and it is growing. A lot of people look at immigration and see it as part of the problem. They think that they are unable to get jobs because so many people are coming here.
	Let me return to the issue of the EU and the 10 countries that came in. Whereas Germany, France and the majority of the other countries had derogations to protect their economies, which allowed them to control who was coming in, as we have now done with Romania and

Kerry McCarthy: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning UKIP for its policy of putting huge billboards in areas of quite high immigrationit certainly does so in my constituencystating Say no to unlimited immigration? We certainly do not have unlimited immigration in the UK, and I can only see that the purpose is to stoke up resentment in those communities.

Nigel Evans: The tabloids used them as an example of what was happening. Clearly, a lot of other skilled people came from within the EU.
	The Government estimate that there are up to 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. However, according to Migrationwatch UK a study by the London School of Economics in March 2009 suggested an estimate of more like 725,000, of whom 518,000 are based in London. Those figures prompt the question why on earth the Government have not included proposals to create an integrated border police capable of tackling this problem at source. That way, we would have sworn officers who could be recognised as such by the public. I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary's reasoning against a proposal that seems to go hand in hand with the Government's intention. The Government want to tighten up border security but do not want to be seen to use a Conservative initiative that would prove effective.
	A border police force would have all the necessary powers to arrest, detain and prosecute offenders. Only such a fully integrated border police force will allow the development of specialist skills in fighting people trafficking, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling. Illegal immigrants, however, are part of a wider issue of population. The Office for National Statistics predicts that the population will increase by 4.4 million to 65 million by 2016 and reach 71 million by 2031. Immigration is expected to contribute some 47 per cent. of that growth. Is such growth acceptable and when will the Government wake up to the reality of the situation and institute plans that the Conservatives have suggested for annual limits on economic migration?
	That aspect has been neatly summed up by the all-party group on balanced migration, which has stated that
	There are two litmus tests for immigration policy. First, it needs to tighten up immigration controls so that British unemployed people are given a fair crack at getting jobs. Second, it needs to control immigration so that the UK's population does not hit 70 million in 2028. This Bill passes neither of these tests.
	So, with regards to immigration, the Bill is a glorious opportunity spurned. The Government have not taken the chance to introduce a border police force, and they have not seriously considered an annual limit on economic migration.
	Members on all Benches, despite differences over content, would have welcomed a Bill that simplified the system. In fact, the Bill does little at all for our immigration situation save, as Migrationwatch UK has said, for
	making the task of consolidation of existing legislation yet more complicated.
	Let me turn to naturalisation and citizenship. When the Bill came before the House of Lords there was legitimate concern over the retrospective nature of the naturalisation process on migrants already in the UK and near the end of their qualification period under the old rules. I am amazed that the Government have not taken those concerns on board, and I gather that they wanted further debate on the amendment. In my opinion, there is no debate to be had. We are simply talking about the legitimate expectation of those people who are already hereit is an issue of fairness, and I have heard what the Home Secretary has said on the matter.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed its concerns in 2007 about retrospective changes to migration rules in a report on the highly skilled migrant programme. It recently went on to say:
	We urge the Government not to repeat the unedifying spectacle of riding roughshod over migrants' legitimate expectations of settlement, which undermined many migrants' faith in the UK's commitment to basic fairness...We recommend that clear transitional provisions are made which meet the legitimate expectations of those already in the system.
	The last time that the Government ignored that Committee, the Committee's concerns regarding highly skilled migrants were subsequently upheld by the High Court, and the Government were forced to do what they had failed to be persuaded to do in the first place, namely to honour the legitimate expectations of those who had planned their future lives in the UK on the basis of the law as it stood when they came to the country. That aspect was rightly picked up again by the House of Lords, and clause 39 is now in place, which provides that nothing in part 2 shall affect an application for indefinite leave to remain or for British citizenship made prior to the date on which part 2 is commenced. The clause also provides that nothing in part 2 shall affect an application for indefinite leave to remain that is made in the 12 months after the date on which part 2 is commenced.
	My noble Friend Baroness Hanham led the argument on the issue in the other place, and her comments are equally pertinent today:
	The people who have faithfully adhered to the current rules and thought that they were firmly established on the road to citizenship should not now have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. They have an expectation of a timescale in which their naturalisation will be fulfilled.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 705.]
	People would rightly feel angry, worried and betrayed by any retrospective moves. I have grave reservations about any retrospective legislation that would seek to punish or, in this case, place an even greater burden on people who have been following the law that the Government laid down.
	I should like to turn to the provisions on the common travel area, which is made up of the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. All nationals of those countries can travel freely within them. The Government have said that the CTA is out of date, and that the privilege of movement within the CTA may be abused by others. Although we must be aware of the potential dangers, we must be proportionatea factor of which the Government seem to have lost sight. The CTA has been of great benefit to the peoples of the whole of the British Isles since partition in 1921, and it even survived through world war two. The Government's proposal is unenforceable, as the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic does not exist in any physical form. There are hundreds of tiny lanes with no visible indication of a border, and all the military and security installations have been dismantled. What we should be looking at, in close collaboration with the Irish authorities, is putting in place an upgraded electronic border around the whole of the British Isles.
	The Government's original suggestion in clause 46 was tantamount to the abolition of the common travel area, because the re-imposition of immigration controls would mean that entitlement to travel would have to be proven at the border, and so the panoply of immigration controls would operate there. As Justice has said,
	immigration controls should only be introduced into a previous common travel zone where a case of strict necessity (rather than mere administrative convenience) can be made out.
	The Government have manifestly failed to justify that action. The amendments put in place by the House of Lords must stand.
	The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution considered part 3 in detail. It said:
	It is clear to us that the policy-making process that has led to clause 46 (now clause 48) has not been informed by any real appreciation of the constitutional status of the Crown dependencies or the rights of free movement of Islanders.
	If the Government plan to reintroduce the provisions, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House what steps she and her Department have taken to rectify their lack of constitutional awareness.
	In short, I believe that the House of Lords has seen through a piece of legislation that is pretty shoddy in parts. The Bill is not brave enough to take on proposals that make sense, such as a border police force or an annual limit on economic migration, nor does it consolidate the maze of existing immigration legislation. I urge Members of all parties not to vote in favour of any retrospective legislation on nationalisation, which would be grossly unfair and disproportionate. Likewise, the Government have not made a good enough case for all but removing the CTA, and our noble Friends' amendments must stand.

Albert Owen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I am sure that if he sat the citizenship test, he would do so in Welsh, and I would certainly do so, too. The last point that he raised, on the common travel area, is one that I want to explore further, but first I want to welcome many measures in the Bill. The citizenship part of it, which many people have talked about, is complex, but it is a move in the right direction, which I welcome. I also welcome part 1 of the Bill, which is about advancing the UK Border Agency. I have seen some of the successes. As I mentioned in an intervention on the shadow Home Secretary, I have watched it since its inception and seen it produce very good results in the port of Holyhead in my constituency. It is a very large port; some 2 million passengers a year travel through it, as does a lot of cargo. A lot of highly intelligent work is done in the port by immigration authorities, working with the police and the UK Border Agency.
	I very much welcome the fact that in some areas, the issue of who is responsible for what will be sorted out. I am sure that that is the intention of the Bill. Before the UK Border Agency was set up, I recall talking to both the police and Customs, and noted how concerned they were that the agency would not work with them. I think that those fears have now been allayed; the agency is working well. I talk to people in the specialist units in the port and to people at the dedicated security posts that North Wales police has in my area. Those people do an excellent job, and they are specialised, so I do not really see the need for the single, all-encompassing body that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has mentioned. I see the police working alongside the UK Border Agency and immigration authorities. That works, and I think that it can work better in future. However, I welcome part 1 of the Bill, which will consider administrative areas, so as to tidy up the relationship between Customs, the UK Border Agency and the police.
	The port of Holyhead, which is in my constituency, as I have said, is the second or third-largest port in the United Kingdom. It is certainly the largest port on the western seaboard, with a considerable amount of traffic, and it is also a major employer. It has potential for growth in freight and in passengers, which will put greater burdens on the UK Border Agency and immigration authorities.
	I want to concentrate on the controversial measures to introduce immigration controls for journeys within the CTA especially with regard to journeys from the Republic of Ireland. The measures will have a profound effect on the port of Holyhead, and indeed on all Welsh ports that have historical trade with the Republic of Ireland, and that are major employers in the area. I am mindful of the balance between providing security and ensuring efficient freight and passenger movement. Getting that balance right is very tricky, but the port of Holyhead is used to striking the right balance.
	Throughout the 20th centuryfor many yearsWelsh and Irish ports have had to deal with the security implications of the Irish question, and with the movement of people predominantly by sea, and they have done that very well. The port of Holyhead is on the central corridor, and has been the favoured route to the Republic of Ireland, and for Irish people coming to the United Kingdom. There remains a high security alert today, as there was throughout the most recent Irish troubles. The port is used to dealing with those high security alerts. These days, when I visit the port, I see for myself the work done by front-line people to keep our borders secure. I pay tribute to all those involved with front-line immigration, counter-terrorism and other services, because they do an excellent job. Too often, we deal with the details of what they do, but do not give them credit for what they achieve.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is undertaking an inquiry on Welsh ports. One of the areas that we will touch on is the CTA, so the subject is appropriate to this debate. We visited the port of Holyhead, and we intend to go to other ports in Swansea and Pembrokeshire to look at the effect that the CTA has on the economies of the western seaboard of Wales. We have talked with port operators, immigration and border agencies, and counter-terrorism units about the importance of the security measures in the CTA. This debate is timely, because I have strong concerns about the issue.
	I shall use a local example. In the port of Holyhead, there are, as I have already said, good relationships between the people at dedicated security posts, the special branch police, the UK Border Agency officers and additional UK Border Agency hit squads that deal with the area, and have done for many years. Their work is predominantly intelligence-based, but a lot of it is just carrying out spot checks on people and cargo going through the UK ports. They may also have heard intelligence, gathered either in the Republic of Ireland or on the continent, before they intervene. They have a good success rate, and that system works. It is important that we stress the fact that it does work. There are huge amounts of additional seizures. Huge numbers of lorries are intercepted, and illegal immigrants are taken out of them. The job that the UK Border Agency undertakes, working with others, has been a huge success, and I pay tribute once again to the people on the front line.
	Like all ports, Holyhead has to comply with stringent regulations. The EU security directive, which is soon to be introduced, will make it even more complex for ports to deal with EU-wide legislation. Not only UKBA and customs and immigration officers, but all staff are trained in port security. Port staff provide additional security to make the ports secure and to deal with trafficking and so on. They are all trained to international ship and port facility security code standards. The officers are paid by the port, and a considerable sum is involvedin the case of Holyhead in my constituency, it is 750,000 a year, so an additional cost would be incurred if new measures were introduced to secure the borders of the Republic of Ireland and additional immigration measures were introduced between the Republic of Ireland and Wales.
	I have outlined the significant measures that are already in place in the CTA. The Government have indeed carried out a consultation to abolish the CTA between the Republic and the UK. To be fair to them, the consultation was wide-ranging, and they listened to the concerns of industry and dropped the proposal for fixed immigration controls on all passengers and freight to and from the Irish ports. However, having listened to the Home Secretary, I am concerned that the Government intend to reintroduce the proposal, although it was defeated in the other place.
	The proposal to introduce an identity card system and passport requirements for all travellers would be an additional burden on the ports. The proposal on carrier liability, with a 2,000 fine for every passenger who fails to carry a passport or an ID card, would impose additional unnecessary burdens.
	I am slightly concerned about the imposition of e-Borders. If there were a level playing field and basic information across the whole European Union, it would be a great advantage, but I am concerned that the omission of the border between the Republic and the north will displace some of the problems and therefore hope that a level playing field will be established. I am concerned that the huge number of seizures in the ports of Holyhead and Dublin and other ports will move elsewhere as tighter regulations and measures are introduced between the Republic and the UK. People will simply drift across the border from the Republic to the north and then across to the UK without any checks. That is the real fear for many of us. It is not enough to have tight borders, as we might open the problem up somewhere else. Anyone who has recently been to the Republic of Ireland will know that the north and south are very much unified when it comes to tourism, for instance. The borders are flexible and open.

Charles Walker: Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the third immigration Bill on which I have spoken since I became a Member of Parliament four years ago. I have a suspicion that I will be serving in Committee; I shall bring to bear the collective knowledge that I have collated in the past four years. Although this debate is not particularly well attended, it is nice to have heard so many differing views put so sensibly by colleagues on both sides of the House. Discussion of immigration is often heated. It is incumbent on us to discuss it with passion, yes, but also moderately.
	I did not go into politics to become an immigration officer. I help people with their immigration cases, but I believe that the job would be better done by people at the Home Office. Like all Members here today and many who are not, I am terribly concerned about how long it takes to process immigration cases. It can take many years for a case to be concluded, and I do not think that that is fair on those who seek to remain in this country. We need to speed up the processto be humane, if nothing elseand when people are denied the right to remain here, they should be removed quickly. If people are to have confidence in the immigration system, they have to know that it works and that a refusal will mean that the relevant person will be required to leave the country. Too often, people feel that a refusal basically means that the person concerned just disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. We need a quick and humane immigration system.
	Unlike the Minister, I am not an expert on immigration, and I know that words are easily said. However, I hope that the Minister's Government and any future Government will bring additional resources to bear on the issue. As a great nation, we owe it to our citizens to control and manage our borders. There has been great concern in my constituency, and in those of many other Members, about the porous nature of our borders. I am a great supporter of the idea of a well-funded and well-resourced border police force, which would manage and control our borders. It would stop undesirable peoplethose who want to cause this country harm, such as some whom we have seen in the past few yearsfrom getting into the country. It would also be aware of who was entering, and manage people's entry into and exit from this country. When we read the newspapers and talk to people in business, we hear too often about what happens when illegal immigrants and workers are caught: the police turn up and, basically, give them a travel warrant to Croydon. Those stories may be apocryphal, but they are out there. We need to be aware of them and of the concerns that they create, and we need to address those concerns.
	The Bill does not have all the answers; I do not think it a particularly good Bill. At least, however, the sentiment is there; at least we are trying to point in the right direction. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said in his opening remarks, we have, unfortunately, had eight immigration Bills in the past 13 years. That suggests that we are not getting things right. What we really need is a very good immigration Bill in the near futurebut I am not sure that this is that Bill. It fills a hole at the moment, but I fear that we will be here discussing another immigration Bill in the next year or two. That might be no bad thing, because our constituents' concerns continue, and it is incumbent on us all to address those concerns; we must not only be seen to address them, but actually address them. In that way, our constituents will see a material change in how immigration is handled in this country, in how our borders are policed and patrolled and in how people are treated once they are here.
	Yes, we want to be fair; we must be fairit is a great British trait. However, when someone is denied the right to stay here we must remove them quickly, and be seen to do so. As the Minister and my party's Front Benchers recognise, we need settled communities that rub along well together. One of the concerns of the past few years, as immigration rates have increased, is that we have put some extreme stress on communities. That has created divisions and some unrestnot as much as some media commentators would have us believe, but there is nevertheless plenty to be concerned about. We in this place need to be alive to those concerns, because if we are not, there is another party that will play on them. I do not want to mention its name in the run-up to European and county council elections, but we know that it exists, and that it is very dishonest. It plays on people's very worst fears, and we must not continue to create a space that allows it to prosper. I am convinced that in the next couple of days the great British people will rise up and give that party a firm thumbs down.
	The Bill skates around the issue of population projections and how many people we want coming into this country. Undoubtedly, that concern needs to be addressed more fully than it is in the Bill. This country cannot grow its population indefinitely. It is projected that in the next 30 years we will have 80 million people living in the United Kingdom. Most of those additional 15 million people will come to the east and the south-east. I do not personally think that is a good thing or a sustainable model. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and I very much recognise his concerns about Scotland, which is crying out for peopleadditional human resources to allow it to grow and become an even greater country than it already is. The Bill does not make provision for that to happen, so his concerns were well placed. I would just say to himwithout trying your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know I frequently do when I am speaking in this Chamberthat when I retire I have every intention of moving up to his beautiful country and sitting on an island called Islay fishing and indulging in all that beautiful scenery. However, I am well aware that he is not looking for retirees but for able young and middle-aged people with skills.
	The Bill refers to points-based systemspeople earning points to come to this country. We can be a bit selfish in this country, in that we can afford to take the very best of the people who want to come here. That is a fairly ruthless approach to immigration, but it is one that we can legitimately take. The idea that immigration does not help this country is complete nonsense, and I am delighted that no Member of Parliament has put forward that thesis today. This country has undoubtedly benefited from immigration: one need only go to our hospitals and care homes to realise that. There are huge advantages to immigration, and of course we will never turn our back on those advantages.
	However, we need to be selective and to understand that there is concern about a growing population and the allocation of resources, so that when people come to this country, the existing population, regardless of their race, creed or colour, should not feel at a disadvantage. When there is strife within a community, it is often the settled immigrant population that gets it in the neck most. We need to be mindful of the people already living here and ensure that we meet their needs so that they do not feel disadvantaged by immigration.
	I am quite attracted by the idea of earned citizenship. I think this country is a great countrya fabulous country. It is not just a good country; it is a great country. It is truly the United Kingdom, with Great Britain in there somewhere. It is a great privilege to be able to come to this country and earn that passport, which is recognised around the world, and to be able to call oneself British, or Englishor Scottish, even, if one wants to do that. The idea of earned citizenship is not a bad one; it has many merits and advantages. As we know, if we have earned something we often take greater pride in it than if it is given to us. However, I am concerned about the idea of forced volunteering. Volunteering should be voluntary. It cannot be forced on someone; it has to be something that they want to do in actively deciding to give something back to their community. Although I understand the sentiment entirely, I am not sure that it sits very well in this Bill.
	If Charles Walker were Prime Minister, as he will be in a few years' time

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend. That is certainly an important point, and I hope that the Minister will clarify it in his response.
	All children have a right to be treated equally, whoever they are. Children are children, and the children of asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers should be treated in the same way that we expect our own children to be treated. As things stand, I believe that they have been treated less favourably. I find it upsetting to think of children being snatched from their beds in dawn raids. I know of instances in which the mother was not allowed to explain to the child exactly what was happening.
	The Children's Commissioner for England raised that issue recently in his 11 Million Children briefing. He particularly drew attention to the loss of personal possessions, which is an important point. Someone who comes to this country as an asylum seeker, seeking refuge, may have brought very few things. When they are taken away early in the morning, there is sometimes not time for them to get those things. He told tales of children losing their treasured teddy bears. I find it very concerning that that has happened. I hope that the Minister can say that all those issues in relation to clause 57 will be addressed. I know that the code of practice has been in place, so I wonder why such things can still happen.
	In Wales, the Welsh Refugee Council is the lead voluntary sector agency working with refugees and asylum seekers, in partnership with the Children in Wales group, which I chair here in Westminster. In their briefing to me on the Bill, both organisations raised concerns, including about children being held in detention centres at all. In their briefing, they quoted Marcia, the mother of Michael, aged nine, as saying:
	After the detention Michael was in a bad way. The bedwetting was a problem again and he had nightmares. He wouldn't go upstairs without me...Michael was afraid of the police coming.
	They expressed concerns about dawn raids, long journeys, children and parents sometimes being split up and children seeing their parents at their most distraught and suffering post-traumatic stress. There are therefore questions about how the code of conduct is working, and it is essential that the welfare clause does its bit.
	We must consider the issue of children being in detention at all, which I do not believe should happen. As Anne Owers said in May 2008, which is not that long ago:
	An immigration removal centre can never be a suitable place for a child and we were dismayed to find children being detained and some children spending large amounts of time incarcerated. We were concerned about ineffective and unaccountable months of detention in this extremely important area.
	In the debate in the other place, it was mentioned that there are no reliable statistics about children being held in detention centres, and it was agreed that the Government would address that issue.
	There are some concerns about the new welfare duty. An Opposition Member said that it was important that it should apply to UKBA staff who are placed abroad at entry clearance points and during escorted removals from the UK. The concern is that the inclusion of the words in the UK could leave some of the most vulnerable children who come into contact with such staff unprotected while they are outside the UK. That was debated in the other place, and I hope that it will be given more consideration here. I understand that Lord West said that it would be a matter of policy, not duty.
	We need better statistics so that we know how many children and families are going into detention, and we should make a great effort to find some effective alternatives, as we discussed earlier in the debate. There are other matters that I feel concerned about, most of which have had a good airing today, such as the destitution of many failed asylum seekers and the fact that many people cannot go back to their countries of origin because of long-standing conflicts in places such as Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea. I pay tribute to the campaign Still Human Still Here, many of whose events I have attended in Cardiff. Many of the failed asylum seekers I have met there have an enormous amount to contribute to this country, and I have been distressed by what they have had to do to get a livelihood. There are women who become prostitutes to get money so that they can manage.
	There are good things in the Bill, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration, who is going to respond, is a fair Minister. I have found him very helpful when I have taken individual cases to him. However, we have to make a decisive change to how children and families are treated in the system.

Damian Green: This has been a fascinating debate and, particularly given the revelations of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), a moving and in some ways horrifying one. That causes some difficulties, in that I can either respond to the debate or address the Bill, which is what this debate is supposed to be about, because, to be honest, the two bear a slightly tangential relationship with each other.  [ Interruption. ] As urged by the Minister from a sedentary position, I shall concentrate largely on the Bill, as that is what we are meant to be debating.
	Let me first take this opportunity to say that I hope that the Home Secretary finds life more peaceful and less turbulent out of the front line. Let me also assure her, in her absence, that I for one will be reading at least one part of her memoirs with particular interest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) made a thoughtful contribution and was right about the necessity to debate immigration with the right tone. At times in this House and outside, that has not happened. It is incumbent on us all to give a lead in that respect.
	The Bill illustrates that we have a Government who, after 12 years of strugglingand largely failingin immigration policy, are now just punch drunk when trying to deal with it. The House sees a new immigration Bill every year, but far too many of them, including this one, ignore the real issues and instead add to the confusion of those caught up in our immigration system.
	This was originally meant to be the year when we had the great reforming immigration Bill, replacing all legislation going back to the 1970s and simplifying it. Then Ministers published a draft Bill, with 13 parts and 214 clauses, which they said was part of the biggest shake-up of the immigration system for a decade. By the time we saw the Bill before us today, it had shrunk alarmingly, to four parts and 55 clauses. Being realistic, I should welcome that. Too much of the Government's legislation is usually damaging, so the less of it and the smaller their Bills are, the better. Despite that shrinkage, however, the Government have nevertheless still managed to include a fair amount of bad ideas in the Bill, which is why we welcome the improvements that were made to it in the other place.
	However, if I understood the relevant parts of the Home Secretary's speech correctly, it is particularly regrettable that it is still the Government's intention to remove many of the improvements that were made in the other place. Presumably that is what we will spend some of our time in Committee debating. If so, I should tell the Minister now that we will oppose him in those endeavours. I hope that other parties will do the same, because in many cases where the Government suffered defeat on the Bill in another place, it was because of cross-party efforts. I hope that we will continue that in this House.
	We have before us a rag-bag Bill that lacks any internal coherence, although some of it is useful. We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire about clause 57 and the improvements in the treatment of children. We welcome that and, more importantly, we hope that it leads to a genuine change in how children are treated in the immigration system. Some of the Bill is therefore useful, but some of it is irrelevant and other parts are actively damaging.
	Let me go through the various parts of the Bill. Part 1 deals with functions at the border. The Government are clearly trying to reduce duplication of functions. We think that that is a useful step, but we think even more strongly that the Bill is a missed opportunity. The Government's failure to tackle Britain's porous borders has resulted in a disastrous rise in organised immigration crime. We cannot tackle crime in the UK effectively without addressing the problem of our porous borders. We believe that our borders can be better policed, preventing significant illegal immigration, as well as cracking down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. That is why, as my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary explained, an incoming Conservative Government would make the setting up of a national border police force one of our top priorities. The Bill could, if the Government were to co-operate, allow us to make a start on that.
	Experience has surely taught us in all parts of the House that the specialisation of police services is effective in fighting new types of crime. That is why we set up a committee under Lord Stevens, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who conducted a review of our border security arrangements and concluded that only a unified border force could protect our borders effectively. We intend to replace the current system, which lacks a fully comprehensive and joined-up strategy as well as adequate direction. The officers of the border force should have all the necessary powers and training to arrest, detain and prosecute offenders, as well as the ability to develop specialist skills in fighting people trafficking, illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Although part 1 has some useful features, it is a huge missed opportunity.
	Part 2 of the Bill concerns citizenship and naturalisation. I originally thought that the problem with this part of the Bill was that it was slightly irrelevant to the real and very complex issues affecting community cohesion and national identity. I freely agree that those issues are crucial, difficult and hugely complex. My original worry about the Bill was that it sent out a clear message that even if someone is here, working hard and contributing to society, the Government want to make it more difficult for them to stay here and become British. That seems to be the message behind the Bill, and I am genuinely not sure that it is one that the Minister really wants to send out. It might suit some short-term, dog-whistle politics, but it is certainly not the most thoughtful long-term strategy.
	The problem is that the Home Secretary complicated matters even more in her speech this afternoon, which I found completely extraordinary [ Interruption. ] If the Whip would like to contribute to the debate, he is more than welcome to do so [ Interruption. ] Okay. Well, if he is telling the Minister what to say, I feel for the Minister.
	Let me return to what the Home Secretary said earlier, because it was extraordinary in two ways. First, she said that she was proposing a new points-based system for citizenship, along with the points-based system for general immigration that the Government have introduced. It seems extraordinaryespecially at a time when this place finds itself in more ill repute than it has done for a long timewhen we are discussing a Bill that partly deals with citizenship, that the Minister responsible for the Bill should announce that a whole new citizenship policy is coming down the line and that she is proposing to introduce it for consultation within the next eight weeks. There is not a word about this new policy in the Bill that the House of Commons is discussing today and that the House of Lords has already spent weeks discussing. What kind of way to treat Parliament is that? The Home Office is quietly working away at a whole new policy relating specifically to a policy area in the Bill, yet it has not thought to share it with any of the parliamentarians who are debating the Bill. I think that Ministers should consider their behaviour very seriously.
	Even more extraordinary was the fact that, at one stage in what was notlet me be charitablethe most coherent explanation of a policy that I have ever heard, the Home Secretary said that she would cap the number of people granted citizenship each year. So she is proposing to introduce not only a new set of hurdles in the form of a new points-based system, but, on top of that, a cap. Like everyone else, I appreciate the irony that that sounds very similar to our proposals on general immigration, which she has always criticised and dismissed. She now appears to have adopted them wholesale in relation to citizenship.
	It seems very peculiar that a proposal as radical as this could be introduced in the middle of our deliberations on the Bill. It is not even as though we were promised the Bill in the next Session of Parliament. We have been promised another immigration Bill in the next Session, but it is supposed to be for simplification purposes. A radical change to the citizenship arrangements in this country is being introduced between two immigration Bills that the House is supposed to be debating, which is the most extraordinary way to proceed.
	But let us discuss the Bill before us. Two areas give rise to particular concern. One, which has been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House, is the offer of a quicker route to citizenship if voluntary activity is undertaken. That comes very close to compulsory volunteering, which is perhaps the ultimate absurdity. I share the fears of the Home Affairs Committee, which has produced a thoughtful report on the Bill:
	There is a danger that the activity condition, if implemented without proper consideration, could cause a glut of poorly regulated 'volunteers'. This could place undue and unwanted pressure on the voluntary sector.
	That is a genuine fear, and I hope that Ministers will listen to it. I hope that they will also listen to Volunteering England, which has asked a number of questions, the most pertinent of which is:
	How will the Minister encourage organisations that feel that they do not have capacity to take more volunteers to open up new opportunities and spend time on the verification arrangements for the active citizenship scheme?
	We are in the throes of setting up yet more unnecessary new bureaucracy that will make life difficult, particularly for the small organisations in the volunteering field that often do very good and important work.
	The other unsatisfactory aspect of this part of the Billit has been much improved by their lordshipswas the retrospective section relating to highly skilled migrants who are already here. That group has already won significant victories in the courts against the Government, and it would be sensible for Ministers to stop fighting a battle that they keep losing. In the Lords, my noble Friend Baroness Hanham succeeded in introducing an amendment, which now stands as clause 39 of the Bill. It ensures that people in the closing stages of their limited leave to remain do not get caught up by the new arrangements. That is only fair. Indeed, on 6 April, Mrs. Justice Cox found that there was
	a substantive legitimate expectation that the terms on which you joined the Highly Skilled Migrants programme would be the terms on which you qualified for settlement.
	That is as clear cut as it is possible to be, and I hope that the Government will now stop flogging this very dead horse.
	It is also worth considering the Government's desire to abolish the common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) is rightly concerned about that. The Government claim not to be doing this, but their assertion simply does not stand up to examination. There will be immigration controls on air and sea journeys where none exists at present. There will no longer be a common travel area.
	Will the Minister tell us what effect these new controls will have on staffing arrangements at the UKBA? New border controls will mean either a significant shift of resources from existing posts or the need for many more immigration officers. Which of these is going to happen? To make matters worse, the measures will not lead to an increase in security for the UK. There are, rightly, no proposals to change the arrangements along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, so the effect will be to inconvenience travellers for no discernible purpose whatever. If Ministers argue that citizens in England, Scotland and Wales will be better protected by these measures, why are they discriminating against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland? The current arrangements work well and do not require changing. The removal of the Government's proposed change received widespread cross-party support in the Lords, and I urge Ministers not to seek to change the provision back.
	We will also be interested to hear Ministers' arguments about the change to the court arrangements proposed and rejected by their lordships. I think that we all want to achieve a system of immigration and asylum justice that is considerably faster than the current system, but that does not achieve speed purely at the expense of those who may have a legitimate claim to appeal. It was obvious that Ministers in the Lords could not convince their House of the merits of the Government's proposals, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister argue the case in this House.
	We shall obviously be raising a range of other issues in Committee. From whatever angle we look at this Billthe eighth immigration Bill produced by the Government in their period of officeit fails to deal with the central problems produced by the long-term failure of immigration policy. It fiddles around the edges of a number of big issues, but it does not make our borders more secure or provide clear incentives for those in this country to integrate fully and properly, and it is not fair to many of those who have come here to work and to contribute to our economy.
	There is a need for big changes in our immigration system. We need changes to the points-based system to allow us to place a limit on the number of work permits issued, to bring about a properly integrated border police force and to strengthen the need to speak English for those intending to settle in this country, particularly through marriage.
	The Bill fails to address these important central issues. It will go the way of many of its predecessorsover-hyped on its introduction, then barely leaving a trace on the real world. We need properly radical immigration legislation, but to get that, we need a new Government. With every day that passes, it becomes increasingly clear just how much we need a new Government.

Phil Woolas: As ever, the expertise of the Select Committee Chairman helps me out. He makes a valid point, and I would add to it Frontex, the European frontier force. Frankly, this country could not protect itself against some of the criminal gangs coming from northern Africa and elsewhere without such co-operation. That raises an interesting point that I would like to put to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and ask him to think about deeply as I know that he can. We depend on co-operation with other countriesprimarily in Europe, but also elsewhere. In order to get that co-operation, we must share policies and information. One cannot take an exclusively nationalistic view; we cannot expect to collect data on people travelling to our country unless we are prepared to share data with other countries. That is a matter of common sense in practical policy information.
	The first part of the Bill thus achieves what I have set out and the second part looks at the idea of earned citizenship. Again, I believe that some of the criticism of that idea has been unfair.
	At the moment, this country provides for citizenship through naturalisation, for temporary leave to remain and in the middle we have the concept of indefinite leave to remain. Many of the people in my constituency and in others who have indefinite leave to remain are neither citizens nor temporary migrants; they are in what one might describe as a no man's land. What we have done in this country has, in my view, failed to provide the routes for integration required to give expression to the aspiration of migrants to integrate into our communities and to get on with their lives. The big mistake in our debate is the false assumption that the migrant does not wish to move to integrate and to aspire. That is precisely why the idea of earned citizenship is not punitive, but a platform to help meet those aspirations.

Phil Woolas: The Chairman of the Select Committee never misses an opportunity to raise this issue. Let me point out that we use the words up to two years, which is not the same as two years. Let me also point out that the figures that we have given, and continue to give, to his Committee show that we are managing the legacy, that it is being reduced, and that we are dealing with decisions more quickly. Moreover, following his Committee's representations, we have made policy changes to respond to the needs of Members of Parliament across the House, and the pilot that was conducted on an all-party basis has been implemented. So he is making progress, but he is asking a bit too much. In fact, he is asking two questions.
	Let me now deal with the issue of compulsory volunteering. We reject the accusation that the volunteering is compulsory. What we are trying to dowith, I hope, the support across the House that we have received so faris provide a route enabling people to show their commitment to citizenship by engaging in certain voluntary activities. The discussion of what those activities will be is for the Committee; we have made our own views known.
	Let me make clear that we do not propose the abolition of the common travel area, which was mentioned by a number of Members including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). Along with the Government of Ireland, we are considering how we can improve the situation. According to our assessment, an increased security risk is posed by third-country nationals using the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) expressed anxiety about the potential impact on the ferries at Holyhead, and of course we must act in a way that is sensitive to that. However, I think that when we discuss the detail, the House will benefit from reassurances similar to those provided by my noble Friend Lord West of Spithead in his winding-up speech in the other place.
	Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). An interesting dialogue is taking place with the devolved Administrations on how we can fine-tune migration policy. As I think is recognised by the Scottish Government and others, the quintessential point is that if an immigrant may come to a certain part of the United Kingdom, we must have policies that encourage him or her to stay there, but there is a danger that if the pull of south-east England, north-west England or wherever were great, a Scottish route might be used to usurp it. We must have a grown-up dialogue with our Scottish colleagues about how to deal with that. I believe that the Migration Advisory Committee has made progress.
	The policy instrument that is beneficial to the hon. Gentleman's argument is the separation of temporary migration for economic purposes from permanent settlement. I think that if someone comes to the country to work in, say, a skills-shortage area for a definite period, it will be possible to have our cake and eat it. However, we should bear in mind the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others about that separation of temporary migration from permanent settlement.
	Some Members referred to the detention of children. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire cited a specific case, but also made a general point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has raised the issue with me and with others, and has spoken about it in the House on many occasions. Government policy is, of course, that alternatives to detention to children are preferable, and a number of pilots have been conducted. I respect the point that was made by the hon. Member for Ashford, wearing his constituency hat. I was interested by what he said, and will bear it in mind. Dungavel in Scotland is one example of the possible alternatives.
	The independent tribunals and courts, not Ministers, make decisions on eligibility and grants. It is the independent system that makes the decisions. I can reassure the House that I personally review each and every case of a child in detention. Each case comes up through the system and on to my desk, and I take that responsibility very seriously. However, the parent also has a responsibility to ensure that the child is not being used in the system. As was made clear by the example given by the hon. Member for Ashford, the perception is often as bad as the reality, and is sometimes worse. However, we cannot set policy precedent on the basis of an individual case. The Bill proposes to give us an even greater duty for the care of children than we already have. I think the House has welcomed that, and I am grateful for its support. I hope that the Committee will give more thought to the matter.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the police and ombudsman powers. We will, of course, consider his points and respond to them in Committee.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has followed the debate very closely, and that he has concerns about the citizenship proposals. I want to try to convince him, and others who share his view, that the idea of earned citizenship isas I have already saidbeneficial not just to the immigrant but to the wider community. I also think it obvious that making change may have unintended consequences. My hon. Friend has alerted the House to some of them, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh alerted us to potential unintended consequences in the area of volunteering. The House must consider that, but I urge it not to reject proposals for change that will improve the overall position because of concerns about unintended consequences, real though they may be. I believe that, between us, we can solve those problems.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh made a genuinely powerful case for the benefit of migrancy to this country. He gave us figures based on experience, and pointed out that this is a country of transition for many hundreds of millions of people. Last year, 285 million came in and out of it. Our border controls, only part of which dealt with in the Bill through UK Border Agency powers, are backed up by the new regimes on fingerprinting visasthe biometric identity which is proven to be workingelectronic borders and the reintroduction of border controls. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the past abolition of those controls.
	The ability to analyse visa overstayers is critical. Without that and without the enforcement powers that the Bill partly gives us, the visa regime is worthless. That is why it must be seen as part of a wider strategy which includes the points-based system and, crucially, the sponsorship role of universities, colleges, employers and, indeed, individuals. The criticisms of the bogus colleges are, I believe, addressed by the introduction of the new scheme, but we have not hidden from the failures of the past under this and earlier Governments.

Christopher Huhne: Will the Minister concede that while the e-border scheme is crucial to ensuring that there are no visa overstayers, it is entirely unnecessary to proceed to collect all the other information about our citizens' travel plans as part of ensuring that our immigration control works? It simply is not.

Phil Woolas: I have already urged the hon. Gentleman to think this through. First, we cannot operate in isolation from other countries. We cannot say to the Americans, We want all your information, but we will not give you any of ours; it does not work like that. Secondly, if one is keeping a register of people entering and leaving the country, one has to count the British people who are leaving as well, in order to identify where there may be false or fraudulent use of documents, for example, or dual citizenship, or a plethora of other such eventualities. In addition, there are the benefits in terms of crime and security; that point has already been made. Already, 2,900 people have been arrested as a result of e-borders, many of them for serious crimes including murder and rape, simply because we have that counting in and counting out system.

Phil Woolas: Through ignorance rather than deliberately I suspect, the hon. Gentleman is confusing the two issues of the passenger transport data and the e-borders system. I invite himI make this invitation publicto come to the control centre at Heathrow and see for himself the benefits of that system. I am not a betting man, but my bet would be that when he has seen it [Interruption.] I bet I would win it. My bet is that when he has seen it, he will drop his opportunistic opposition to it, which is based on his wrong belief that this is somehow an infringement of people's civil liberties.
	The point about co-operation is extremely serious. We cannot say to the Americans and others that we will not give them our passenger data when we expect to know who is coming from their country to ours. That does not take into account the way the crime gangs work.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Many Members will be reassured if we can have some more clarity on this issue, however. Under the e-borders scheme, the Minister is proposing that the travel plans of ordinary British citizens going to and from this country will be stored on a database. Will that be made available to the Americans, or not?

Phil Woolas: Those data will not. They are already collatedthey have been for some time. If the hon. Gentleman reads the briefings that are available, he will come to understand the difference between the passenger data and the e-borders system. I open the invitation to him to come and look at that.
	I believe I have answered every specific question, and also the general points.

Graham Allen: We sum it up in Nottingham in slightly different words, but to exactly the same effectwe talk about building the social and emotional bedrock for young people. If young people have the ability to interact, to learn and to resolve arguments without violencethe basic things that most middle-class parents teach their childrenit is virtually impossible to fail in terms of educational attainment, aspiration to work and raising a decent family. That is why it is important that such things are built into provision from the earliest point, instead of chasing after the problem later, by which time it is all but intractable without the expenditure of massive amounts of money and person hours.
	In addition to building young people's social and emotional bedrock, in Nottingham we are working directly to address young potential fathers. We fund a specialist health development worker for young men and have commissioned research by Dr. Peter Gates at Nottingham university on how best to identify potential absentee fathers and communicate with them. That research builds on the work that we have done with young girls, and it will result in a hard-hitting DVD and appropriate sex education materials to accompany it.
	I know that the Minister will agree that more needs to be done nationally to target teenage boys, through the benefits system, and in enabling them to make mature decisions about parenthood, and encouraging them to delay sexual activity. Nottingham could be an example of how to tackle the problem in both the immediate and the long term. It is not only about swatting the mosquito, but draining the swamp. We need to build for the future through a long-term programme of investment.
	Any materials used need to be easy to follow, and not beyond the comprehension of teen parents who left school earlyor even of the average MP. The Family Planning Association does good work in this sphere, with community projects targeted at young men. It made getting the message across to boys the theme for its annual contraception week last year.
	The message may be getting through: according to NHS statistics, the number of men attending NHS contraception clinics leapt by 20 per cent. in 2006-07, and there was a huge 54 per cent. increase in those aged 15 and 16. These signs of improvement must be enhanced by further work to provide young men with the social and emotional basis for sensible decision-making.
	I was pleased to see that in February the Ministers with responsibility for public health and for young people announced an extra 20.5 million to support young people and help them to access contraception. Do the Government actually know what that money has been spent on? Do the Government know the extent to which it is being used to track real boys as well as real girls? Otherwise, it could be business-as-usual syndrome instead of a sharp, systematic identification and face-to-face contact with those who need it before they even consider sexual activity. In other words, we should have outcomes with specific people rather than just allocating more money.
	That is not as daunting as it might sound. Even in Nottingham, only 417 teenagers had babies last year. That is a perfectly manageable number when it comes to getting to know those people, their siblings and their associates as part of defining a broader at-risk group with whom we can then work very directly with some serious pre-emptive education. We will not do that unless we identify where money is going and what it is being spent on and get some real outcomes noted and reported to the centre so that they can be properly tracked.
	Although improvements to the benefit system are an important step and the focus of tonight's debate, it must be remembered that under-16s or under-18s who are full-time students or who are getting income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance do not pay maintenance under the current rules. We need to find other ways to reach those fathers and to ensure that they are involved in children's lives.
	I welcome another initiative of the Government's, which is the requirement in the Welfare Reform Bill that a father's name be recorded on the birth certificate. That might seem obvious to many people who read or listen to this debate, but it is not a current requirement. Four in 10 babies registered without a father are born to teenage mothers. This welcome change will not only make it easier to track down who owes maintenance, for example, but it will also enable the transmission of messages to the father to highlight the importance of that father's being in the child's life as that young person grows up.
	Let us not forget that two out of three teen fathers are resident at a different address from the mother. Rebuilding that family unit with every possible assistance and support is clearly something that would be beneficial to the child when they were growing up. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister could tell us whether that provision will also entail a corresponding requirement to inform the father that he is named. That would not only be a safeguard against being falsely named but, for those who are truly and properly named as fathers, it could be a channel of communication to help deliver them from the status of outsider in their own child's life. They can then undertake the responsibilities that fathering a child must entail.
	I say that with some feeling. In some senses, I feel that I have come full circle in talking about this issue. Around 1989-90, I led for my party on social security on the first Child Support Agency Bill. Few things separated the parties on that Bill, but one thing that was very apparent was that we were not listening to anyone outside. We were not listening to Families Need Fathers or to battered wives. We did not have proper pre-legislative scrutiny. The result was that we reinvented that Billyou can correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speakeron at least five subsequent occasions. How many broken families, how much misery and how many suicides did that oversight cost us?
	We now have a chance to put the history right. We have created a new commission to oversee this area, which is not just about punitively chasing and tracking down teen fathers or any other fathers. It is about developing policy and bringing those young fathers back into the family in a literal sense so that we have a chance to rewrite some of the unfortunate history that there has been in this policy field.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. I am not flattering her when I say that she has done a truly remarkable job in the short time that she has held this portfolio. Great progress has been made and I hope that she will confirm the Government's commitment to a balance between carrots and sticks, to much better cross-departmental working and, above all, to committing to find ways to intervene early, which is cheaper and more effective, rather than late, which is both expensive and less effective. If she does that, there will be many teen fathers who will be part of a family rather than apart from their family. Above all, many babies and children being born today in our country will be raised with a father and a mother, and will be much more able as both individuals and citizens of our society. They will be among the foremost to be grateful for a Government who take that opportunity and challenge.

Kitty Ussher: As is customary, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate. I also thank him for his kind words and know that he speaks with considerable expertiseas he has mentioned, he chairs the board of the teenage pregnancy taskforce in his constituency. Moreover, I know that he shares my strong personal interest in getting the policy right. He has made a clear contribution locally in Nottingham, and as he has mentioned, he recently met senior officials from CMEC, as well as officials from the Department for Work and Pensions. We very much welcome that engagement, so I thank him for it.
	As I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, he raised several issues that cross a number of Departments and challenged us to be joined up in our response. He has mentioned policy areas that are the direct responsibility of the Department for Children, Schools and Families, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Justice, and my humble Department, the Department for Work and Pensions. I will attempt to give him a cross-departmental response, because he is absolutely right that we need to solve the issues by working together.
	I want to start with my hon. Friend's key insight: of course, all children have two parents, and over time, the widespread use of the phrase single parent or lone parent in the media has drawn attention away from the fact that there are almost always two parents around, as well as the child or children involved. My hon. Friend rightly reminds us that our policies need to encompass everyone in separated families. Often, parents, whatever their age, who do not live with their children have a genuine desire to be more involved. Our role in Government is to remove any barriers to that across the gamut of Government policy.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's distinction between the separate issues of how we best support young people after they become parents, and how we best intervene so that they can come to a mature decision about when is the best time to have childrenthat is, before they become parents. There is also a fundamental challenge across both issues: how do we help teenage girls and boys to break out of the pattern of behaviours that they see all around themthe very behaviours that have often led to child poverty being handed down from generation to generation? How do we break that cycle? How do we change the presumptions that society sometimes unfortunately makes?
	I will address all the points that my hon. Friend made, starting with the issues that he raised about supporting fathers, particularly young fathers, into work, so that they can perhaps contribute from a more confident standpoint, and are, of course, more financially able to contribute. The cornerstone of our whole approach to welfare policy is a benefit and tax system that provides support for those who cannot work at the present time, but that provides every incentive for them to enter the world of work at the earliest possible opportunity. That might be full-time work, part-time work or preparing for work through training or education. In this debate, we have focused on young parents, but of course we want everybody in society to realise their potential.
	The particular point about young parents is that if people's ambitions become thwarted or dented, or are never realised, due to lack of confidence at a young age, it is much harder to recover a sense of drive. There is always a second or indeed a third chance, particularly under this Government, but it is important to try to get it right first time round. That has been a consistent theme of the Government, and the Welfare Reform Bill, which is currently being debated in the other place, builds on the foundations that we have put in place over the past decade.
	The issue is particularly important in the current economic climate. I know from my experience as a constituency MP how heartbreaking it is when a young person enters the job market for the first time and cannot find what they want because of the macro-economic situation, which is beyond their control, and then does not have the confidence to come back to it later. They may perhaps take a different path in life, often involving setting up home and having children. If the Government, through their welfare to work policy, are not able to give that person the chance that they need when they want it, all too often the opportunity does not arise again.
	All Jobcentre Plus advisers are trained to help people find out what they are entitled toto find their way through the benefits mazeand can guide people through filling in a claim form. If the young person is 16 or 17, someone will call them back within four hours to discuss the situation. If they are 18 or over, an adviser will contact them within 24 hours, once they have made their initial claim. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has made it quite clear that by the turn of the year young people between 18 and 24 who are verging on being long-term unemployed as a result of the recession will be guaranteed jobs or training precisely to try to avoid a whole generation of young people being abandoned on the scrapheap, as happened in previous recessions under previous Governments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North raised the issue of the couple penalty, as it is called in the jargon. Perhaps there is a perception that by separating, families can get more from the system. We are ever vigilant to make sure that that is not a real economic effect, and I have no evidence to assume that it is more or less relevant to younger parents. However, if my hon. Friend does have such evidence, we would like to keep it under close review. We want to allocate resources according to need, and not to create perverse incentives.
	My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of complexity. The situation does remain complex, and the December 2008 White Paper on welfare reform argued that a system of benefits fit for the 21st century should be simple to understand, well targeted and empowering, and that is our motivation through the successive stages of welfare reform, which must provide clarity and certainty for people making the transition between benefits and work. The White Paper committed the Government to explore whether, over the long term, a single benefit is the right approach to make things simpler. The desire to reduce complexity lies behind, for example, the review of housing benefit that I am leading and on which I hope to report soon. Regardless of people's age, complexity is something that we must do our best to reduce.
	My hon. Friend proposed a one-stop shop for young fathers. It is an interesting idea, but personally, I am not convinced at the moment. I think that it would be better if, in mainstream services, the entire government system can deal with young people's demands. I would be interested to hear of examples in which that is not the case, so that we can make sure that we correct them. However, I will bear his suggestion in mind.
	The Government recognise that families are more diverse than ever before, and the issue of teen families proves that very point. The role of mothers and fathers in modern families is changing, and public services and the workplace must reflect those changes not only in benefits policy but across all public services. My hon. Friend is quite right that the outcomes for children are better when their fathers are involved. Moving on to the territory of my hon. Friends in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, it is worth saying that guidance on supporting teenage pregnancies was published by the DCSF and the Department of Health in July 2007, setting out what local areas should have in place to improve outcomes for teenage parents, both mothers and fathers, and their children.
	Fathers' ability to become involved is, I agree with my hon. Friend, sometimes hindered by service providers who do not appreciate the role that they could, or do, play, particularly if they are not visible to the service provider, who consequently does not take their needs into account. If someone does not ask the question, Are you a father? when a young person comes into their sphere of influence, they might not realise the full extent of support that is required. We recommend that local services should take a much more proactive approach to identifying young fathers through the common assessment framework and targeted youth support arrangements. For example, young men who are not in education, employment or training should routinely be asked, as I have suggested, if they are a parent, so that we can build up a better picture of them and provide the support that they need as fathers. That includes the desire that we hope they will have to support their children and earn a wage sufficient to do so, regardless of whether they live with them.
	The Think Fathers campaign was launched at the end of 2008 to effect a change in attitudes and behaviour and to help deliver more father-friendly practice across the board, following the publication of research that showed that engagement and support for fathers from the DCSF and children's services was patchy. We agree that a more focused approach to the issue is needed, and we are in the process of trying to achieve that.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that the Welfare Reform Bill contains significant change on joint birth registration. The answer to his question whether an unmarried father's name can appear on the birth certificate without his knowledge is no. That is crucial to the way the system works. A mother would, by law, have to name the father if she knew who it was, or she would be committing perjury. The father would then be contacted and asked to confirm that. The father's name would then appear on the birth certificate. Yes, the birth certificate is only a piece of paper, but it is a legal piece of paper and it has huge ceremonial and cultural significance. We are clear that at the crucial moment when a father comes to terms with fatherhood and perhaps deep down wants to get involved, it is a little nudge in the right direction, rather than a barrier preventing him from doing so.
	One aim of the joint birth registration provision is that an unmarried father who registers his child's birth will acquire parental responsibility, whereas under the current system, if parents are not married to each other, a mother can prevent the father from registering, and he would need to apply for a court order. Also under the current system, an unmarried father may refuse to register, even if the mother wants him to do so. It would be illegal for him to refuse under the new system. I hope that that will be welcome.

Kitty Ussher: We certainly need to find a way to make it easy to do that. There is an inherent tension between the role of registrars and wider social policy, because registrars are, by definition, very important clerksthey register. They do not have a wider social policy goal. I agree with what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve, but there may be other ways of doing that, which I shall come to.
	I shall deal next with the extra dimension added by CMEC, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. From the outset, the difference between the commission and the CSA, which forms part of it, is that it has a wider role, which is extremely ambitious but cuts to the core of what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, which is to change the culture of society. The commission's work in this area has not begun, but it has some exciting idea for creating a society where parents recognise their responsibilities towards children and the responsibilities that come from sexual relationships as part of that, rather than that being an add-on when events force people down that route.
	The innovative work that my hon. Friend is doing in Nottingham will be watched carefully by staff at CMEC, as well as by officials in my Department, to see whether there are wider lessons that can be learned. My hon. Friend is ahead of the curve in many areas, which is extremely useful as policy develops.
	The commission's Options service is available to both parents to help them determine the best maintenance arrangement for their circumstances. The CSA's role is to alleviate child poverty by ensuring that money flows to children. That is and should be its primary role, but the people who contact it may be in need of other sorts of help. That can be a means of keeping families together and/or involving absent parents with the upbringing of their children, regardless of the state of the relationship between the two parents. The Options service can signpost parents to other services, such as mediation and third-sector support, which can include mentoring and so on. The challenge is to ensure that, when there is a clear need, the Options service points people in the right direction. It can help parents to come to arrangements that may include support in kind and the transfer of objects rather than money, and it can encourage people to understand what a private arrangement looks and feels like. That is crucial to a relationship between separated parents that works in the interests of the child, and there is potential in those services.

Kitty Ussher: Indeed. I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution and completely agree. Contact centres have an important role to play in the tapestry of policy in certain circumstances, and it is not an easy to work there, so I pay tribute to the staff and, indeed, to everyone involved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North raised the issue of lower socio-economic groups, to use his words, and how they respond to the options that the Options service presents. He made an extremely valid point about monitoring and, to ensure that people do not drop out of the system as the law changes, I have made it a top personal priority to monitor Options service usage and the number of people who go through formal or informal arrangements. He has put his finger on a crucial issue, but I should like to reassure him that we have no evidence of such activityand we do have as much evidence as it is possible to have. As time goes on and more data become available, however, monitoring will certainly be our top priority.
	My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that, from April 2010, child maintenance will be fully disregarded in the calculation of benefits. It will have a huge psychological impact on people's desire to contribute but a very real financial impact on the families concerned. The commission is also carrying out research into why some parents choose not to make maintenance payments and how such behaviour may be changed. Once we have the results, we can take the appropriate policy action. Of course, in circumstances where behaviour does not change and the non-resident parent is liable to pay maintenance, which is means-tested, the commission has an enhanced range of enforcement powers, including the powers in the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Cutting to a point that both my hon. Friends made, I should say that the commission is also involved in the development of the pilots that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced in December 2008. They will test the impact of providing more accessible and better co-ordinated local services for separating and separated parents. It is a potentially exciting policy. The pilots will start later this year and include advice on child maintenance and child contact and residence as part of the same service, and advice on child care benefits and tax credits. They will enable us to see whether we can use holistic services along the lines of the Australian approach, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned, to provide a more effective service to support separated families. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions visited Australia last week specifically to look at how such centres work in practice.
	It is worth touching on the question whether there should be a relationship between financial support and contact. I completely understand that some aggravation is often felt: there is no love lost between separating parents if someone pays maintenance but is not able to have contact. However, it is important to separate the two arrangements, and I do not think that people can pay for contact, which is perhaps what would follow. There is an important, softer point as well. If separated or separating parents of whatever age can come to a financial arrangement, which is often the hardest thing to negotiate, I see no reason why they should not take confidence from that and come to an arrangement about contact. We encourage people to start with the finances but not to see that as the end of the negotiation. That is one of the important reasons why people, even those on benefits, are able to opt out of compulsory CSA negotiation. If they are able and willing to come to their own private arrangements, the chances are that there will be a kernel of an opportunity for the parents to talk. That would help the children by helping an agreement on contact to be reached. If that fails, there is always the opportunity to go to court.
	I am aware that we have the luxury of being able to talk for several hours, but I will not detain the House for much longer. I just want to touch on the issue of supporting children prior to parenthood and how best to provide them with the life skills to make mature decisions about their futuresincluding when to have children and how to break out of negative behaviours that they see around them. I am sure that we all share concerns about England's high rates of teenage pregnancy compared with those of most other developed countries. That is why we launched the 10-year teenage pregnancy strategy in 1999, following a detailed report from the social exclusion unit.
	Since then, we have achieved a 10.7 per cent. fall in the conception rate among under-18s, and a 6.4 per cent. fall in that rate among under-16s, reversing a trend that had been going upwards. Within the overall reduction in teenage conceptions, teenage births have fallen by 23.3 per cent. Those falls are welcome, but we would not be having this debate if we did not recognise that the progress has not been fast enough.
	I understand that there are particularly challenging circumstances in Nottingham; that is why we welcome my hon. Friend's contribution and engagements. To accelerate progress, the Minister for Children, Young People and Families and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), at the Department of Health, recently announced additional support to help local areas reduce their birth rates further. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North mentioned the 20.5 million extra that there has been to improve young people's access to effective contraception, and support for parents so that they can talk to their children about sex and relationships. Of course we need to know how that money is being spent, and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's questions to colleagues at the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
	I can exclusively reveal that the money is broken down into 10 million for local health services to ensure that contraception is available in the right places and at the right times. I am thinking especially of long-acting, reversible contraceptive measures, which science dictates will be more likely to be focused on girls; that does not mean, however, that the same principle will not apply to boys. Another 7 million goes towards a new media campaign on contraceptive choices to raise awareness of the different options. Department of Health Ministers have not yet decided whether there will be a particular focus on boys, although I hope that this debate will encourage them to do so. Furthermore, 1 million is directed towards the further education sector for on-site contraception. That sector is proving a particularly useful channel for making an impact on young people's views. There is also 2.5 million for the Healthy College programme. That follows the announcement last October that the Government intend to make personal, social and health education statutory in all schools, to ensure that young people have the knowledge and skills that they need to make safe and responsible choices.
	I have already alluded to the issue, but my hon. Friend posed the question whether teenage pregnancy campaigns are too girl-centric and do not focus enough on boys. We know that boys tend to have fewer sources of information on sex and relationship issues and that they talk to their parents about them less. That is why, if done appropriately, the information that comes through teaching at schools is so crucial for boys. Department for Children, Schools and Families Ministers have commissioned Brook to produce revised guidance on contraception and sexual health services for boys and young men; that will be ready in autumn this year.
	In many communities, including my own constituency, Brook provides a valuable and often credible service to boys and young men. We look forward to its advice. The whole issue of how sex education, including contraception, and child maintenance issues should be taught in schools is being considered as part of the Macdonald review. We will have an opportunity to discuss the issue in the months ahead.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the offer of becoming myth-buster general; I will do my best. Much stigma needs to be overcome. Gingerbread, the lobby group for single parentsthose of all ages and genders, obviouslyprovides an excellent starting point. It does research among its own client group showing that single parents feel that their needs are not properly understood by society, particularly by the media. We in Government, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, have a leadership role in debunking some of the myths, and I encourage colleagues to do so.
	My hon. Friend raised several interesting points about housing, some of which we are considering as part of the review of how housing benefit rules treat separated families. I would be interested in having his views on that when we have launched our consultation.
	As for postersyes, I am happy to consider those if we feel that they can have an effect. The changes to child maintenance may be a peg to hang that on, so let us keep talking about it.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House an opportunity to discuss such an important issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer in his place, for his engagement. I hope that my hon. Friend has been reassured that I and my ministerial colleagues across Whitehall take this issue very seriously. I am not alone in commending his deep personal commitment to changing the lives of teenage parents in his constituency. I hope that from the lessons that he is learning locally we can develop national solutions that will affect the lives of even more of them.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.